Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

British Coal Land

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Mr. Paddy Tipping: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the sale of British Coal's non-operational land. This is a timely debate because only last month British Coal announced the method and the timetable for the disposal of that land.
The issues are important for coalfield communities. British Coal is a large landowner; it is sometimes said that after the Church it is the largest landowner in the country. I do not know about that, but I know that the company intends to sell 150,000 acres of non-operational land over the next year or so.
British Coal's press announcement last month revealed that agricultural and housing land would be sold in regional packages, that announcements would soon be made about the means and the timetable for the disposal of other property and land, and that the land would be sold to the private sector for the best possible price. I understand that British Coal has a timetable in mind for disposing of all the property by March 1996.
The disposal of that land has enormous consequences for coalfield communities as well as for the taxpayer. Coalfield communities have lived with the dust, dirt and dereliction of coal mining for centuries. They aspire to something better. Coal miners have always wanted better for their sons, and now they want better for their communities. They want new job opportunities and improved social and recreational facilities, a brighter landscape and a cleaner environment.
However, there is a feeling that the process is being rushed and hurried so much that it may be botched. In coalfield communities there is a strong view that the Government want to see the back of British Coal, to bury it deep and to walk away from the landscape.
The proposed sale involves several problems, and I shall spell some of them out. The first question to ask is whether the process that British Coal has announced will achieve the best value for money for the taxpayer. The completion date that the company has in mind is March 1996, so in a real sense it is a forced seller. Perhaps under instruction from Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry, British Coal intends to complete the sale by March next year, and that means selling an enormous amount of land.
For example, the disposal of 110,000 acres of agricultural land will be the biggest sale of the century. Without doubt it will distort the market and diminish the proceeds. Some agricultural land has development potential, but the process of gaining that potential is not complete because the necessary planning permissions are not yet in place. The difference between agricultural value

and, for example, retail value is enormous. The land may be sold with hope aspiration, with the real price becoming available only when the land is transferred into the private sector.
Members of Parliament from mining communities and the communities themselves will follow developments closely to see whether the best value for money is obtained. I expect that, as with previous sell-offs, there will be enormous press interest and that if a subsequent buyer makes a lot of cash from a sale there will be controversy.
The consequences of disposing of agricultural land in that way are already becoming apparent. Commitments were given that 600 tenant farmers would be treated reasonably; the Minister will remember that during the passage of the Coal Industry Act 1994 the issue of tenants was frequently raised. The indication was that their position would—as far as possible—be safeguarded. Recent events have unfortunately suggested that that is not to be. It is essential that realistic negotiations take place with tenants within an acceptable timetable so that they have time to get their financing arrangements into place.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me for interrupting, but there is concurrent Scottish business and this may be my only chance to make the point that what he is saying is desperately important. In West Lothian, a constituent has built up a dog-handling business and works for the police, but all of his premises and facilities look like being sold by the coal board above his head. He has invested his life and work in that property, which is crucial to his business. I am sure that that situation applies in many other cases.

Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend makes a very strong point, and one of the themes which I expect to emerge from this debate is that the coalfield communities want to benefit economically from the sale of land. They do not want third parties such as insurance companies or pension funds to benefit. They want to see the rewards from their own landscape, and tenant farmers want that too.
Tenant farmers want the opportunity to buy, and many of them have received a letter from British Coal which tells them that if they want to treat on this land, they must reply by 13 February. That is an indication of the speed of the process, and shows the potential for mishandling it.
Meaningful discussions must also take place about price, and those must take into account the cost of subsidence and the price of contamination, as a lot of the farmlands are badly affected. There is a strong feeling that British Coal's attitude to the sell-off is, "Take it quickly at our price, or leave it". I seek a commitment from the Minister today that he will return to the matter if difficulties arise between British Coal and the tenants. I hope that he will assure us that the commitment given to tenant farmers will be honoured.
The second problem of the process lies in the fact that although the 150,000 acres of land has value—I believe that it may be worth up to £200 million—it also has liabilities. It could well be that those liabilities approach £150 million, leaving a net gain of £50 million. The liabilities spring from a number of sources—unrestored tips, Moynihan agreements and the need to rehabilitate former opencast land for agriculture. Contaminated land needs clearing up, which will cost money.
There may be a temptation for the Treasury to push the liabilities on to the private sector, but I shall point out to the Minister the dangers in doing that. If that were to happen, the private sector would either seek a discount on the price or demand a dowry in cash terms. I expect the price for the regional packages to be dropped during negotiations because of the liabilities, as that happened during the sale of the core business.
The priorities of the private sector may well be to exploit greenfield sites to avoid tackling the liabilities. There is a possibility that the private sector will seek to put the liabilities into separate companies which, because their asset base will be limited, could well go into receivership. We could be faced with a situation where the public sector pays twice—once by discounting the sale and once by being left with contamination to clear up later.
Let me put the issue into a Nottinghamshire context. In the Nottinghamshire coalfield, there are nine derelict collieries, associated spoil tips and a series of derelict railway lines connecting them. There is some very valuable British Coal land in Nottinghamshire in which the private sector will be interested; for example, the Babbington colliery site close to the M1, some valuable farming land, and a new golf course at Hucknall which is owned by British Coal.
Those assets will attract the private sector, but I am not sure that the private sector will be interested in derelict tips and collieries, although I believe that they have challenges and opportunities as well. Many of us in Nottinghamshire want to see Sherwood forest recreated, and there is a plan for a new community forest in the area. A swathe of tree-planting across north Nottinghamshire could create an attractive place in which to live and work. How will that happen? It will not be created by the private sector, but it may be done by transferring the derelict land to the ownership of the local authorities.
Local authorities have the professionalism, but not the resources, to do the job. I hope that the Minister will look closely at giving local authorities the opportunity to help the landscape in their area. I hope that any land sold to local authorities will not just be waste or derelict land. In Nottinghamshire, we need some good land for car parking and for access.
My third concern is about the process of getting key regeneration sites going as quickly as possible. I understand that there are about 200 sites which could be put on the market to create new job opportunities. What people in the coalfield communities want is new investment, new jobs and a new future as quickly as possible, but there are problems in regenerating the sites.
The private sector clearly will be attracted by greenfield sites first. The derelict former colliery sites will require costly infrastructure and the private sector will not be eligible for grants, for example European regional development fund grants or RECHAR grants. We must look closely at those sites where work has begun by British Coal and which have had the benefit of such grants. If those sites are transferred to the private sector, there is a real possibility that those grants will be repayable.
I want to ask the Minister directly about enterprise zones. He will remember that the President of the Board of Trade announced in 1993 that enterprise zones were

to create new investment and new jobs in the coalfield communities, and that there was to be a flagship business park in north Nottinghamshire. Where is it? It appears to have sunk on Victoria street. After three years, we are still waiting for the first enterprise zone. Nothing has happened, and the coalfield communities have a right to know what the problems are. Perhaps the Minister will use this opportunity to tell us.
The lack of action is costing jobs. I know of many firms that want to relocate, but it is clearly to their advantage to go to an enterprise zone. Those firms are waiting for the zone to be created, and we are waiting for the new jobs.

Mr. Peter Hardy: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Deane valley—an area of absolutely desperate economic need—is also waiting for such an enterprise zone. My suspicion, which my hon. Friend might share, is that the delay is meant to assist the Government to ensure that outside interests obtain the land and reap the benefit from this so-called advantage, rather than the people who live in the area and who need it.

Mr. Tipping: I remember the promises to the coalfield communities that new jobs would come. The industry might close, but there would be new opportunities for our people. In the Dearne valley, in Nottinghamshire and across the country, those jobs are still sadly lacking.

Mr. Jim Lester: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem goes wider than just the coalfield communities? Nottinghamshire, which the hon. Gentleman and I represent, has more problems than just the closure of the coal industry. Military depots have closed, and there are other problems. The Minister has been incredibly helpful in the representations which I have made to him, and he has also made himself available to local councils which have, to varying degrees, made representations to see how best the land in their areas can be developed. I welcome the debate, and also the speech that my neighbour is making. I also feel that there are wider issues which affect more than just the coalfield communities.

Mr. Tipping: It is important to recognise that, contrary to the national average, unemployment in small pockets of the coalfield continues to go up rather than down. The gap between the affluent areas and the poor areas of dereliction is increasing. That is a recipe for social and economic disaster.
I have talked about the process of sale. I want to explain how I believe that it should be altered. The timetable of sell-off by March 1996 ought to be relaxed, particularly for agricultural land. An extension of the March 1996 deadline would allow better prices to be obtained and provide more time for consultation. We should consider using public bodies to manage the liabilities. They have the professionalism. They do not have the resources, but they are committed. They are attached to their local communities. They share the desire to get things done.
Perhaps most important, there should be a package of key regeneration sites. It should not be sold off into the private sector, but meaningful discussions should take place with bodies such as English Partnerships to create new jobs in the area. One of the potential partners is British Coal Enterprise. Perhaps the Minister will say a word or two today to give us some succour on the future of that organisation.
British Coal still owns 800 houses and tenants live in them. The Minister will remember the enormous outrage in the mid-1980s when British Coal houses were sold at auctions in hotels in London. That was not acceptable then and it is not acceptable now. I seek a commitment that those 800 tenants, who up to now have not taken the opportunity to buy their home from British Coal, will be given another chance to do so. I hope that if sales occur, efforts will be made to bring housing associations and social landlords into the sale process.
I should also like to mention allotments. It is perhaps a small point, but allotments are vital to local communities. If the Minister wants to cause outrage and provoke a real fight, he should pick on the allotment holders of England. They will be out with their pitchforks and dung to campaign for their case. He should give them a fair chance.
Will the Minister and British Coal consider closely the matter of waste disposal? At present, British Coal disposes of its own waste on its own colliery sites, to regenerate them and put them back into use. There is a shortage of sites for waste. There must be a real danger that if those sites are sold off into the private sector, it will seek to maximise its gain by extending the planning permission for the site so that it can bring all sorts of waste to the site. Coalfield communities want a better and brighter environment. They have had the pits. They have had the spoil heaps. Now they do not want rubbish dumps.
British Coal's announcement last month made no mention of the important recreational and social land that it owns. Not only Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation land is involved. Across the coalfields there are huts where brownies, scouts and branches of St. John Ambulance meet. They want to know their future. The press announcement said nothing about such facilities. The Minister and my hon. Friends will remember the promises that were made during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill. Ministers promised that such recreational facilities would be protected. My hon. Friends tabled amendments, but withdrew them on the strength of those assurances.
Some 215 sites are involved. There are 50 acres of sporting and recreational land just within my constituency. The coalfield communities want to know what is happening to that land. There is a rumour that most of it will go to CISWO on a long leasehold. The story is that some land will go to the National Playing Fields Association. Can the Minister confirm that? Can he confirm that those leases will be transferred at no cost? The facilities are public. Organisations such as CISWO and the National Playing Fields Association, which are publicly funded, ought to receive the leasehold for little.
To put the whole discussion into context, I want to give a case example. In my community, the former Newstead Colliery village is now called Newstead village. The colliery closed in 1987 and the community decided that it wanted a new future. It changed its name to Newstead village. When the colliery closed, 1,400 jobs were lost locally.
A partnership led by Gedling borough council has tried to change the social conditions in the area and build an economic base in Newstead village. Some £2 million has been invested, housing has been improved, open space has been reclaimed and a new water supply has been put in. The Robin Hood line has come to the village and a new railway station has been built. Much more has been done.
British Coal owns a large parcel of land in the centre of the village. It has had planning permission for five years. New housing is needed to bring new life to Newstead.
We have talked to British Coal about selling the land in partnership with other landholders. I am astonished that British Coal now refuses to sell. It says that it would like to help in the regeneration of Newstead. In a letter to me British Coal said:
the reality is that it would not be possible for us to achieve the objectives set by the Government unless we concentrate on the privatisation work.
The big sell-off and the big packages are causing delay on the ground. They are working against regeneration. The letter concludes:
I am sorry I cannot be more helpful as I know that Gedling have been very positive in aiding the regeneration process in their district".
In May last year, His Royal Highness Prince Charles, as the president of Business in the Community, came to Newstead, liked what he saw and called for more partnership. Is it not a pity that because British Coal has a timetable driven by the desire to bury it and get it out of the way, it cannot create new housing and new jobs in Newstead village? Is it not a shame that the people who are unemployed there cannot build the houses under the training scheme that has already been set up?
The example of Newstead shows that people do not look to the past. People in coalfield communities want a new future; they want the land to be their land. They were born in this British Coal land that is to be sold; they grew up in it; they walked in it. In Nottinghamshire, it is the landscape of Lawrence. They have put up with dirt and dereliction and now they aspire to something better. Above everything else, they want the sell-off to ensure that they have new jobs, that their recreational facilities are safeguarded and that the environment in their area is lifted.
The coalfield communities have been betrayed. Promises were made to them. The sale of this land is an opportunity. Let us make sure that they are not betrayed again. This time, let them benefit from their land being sold.

Mr. Gary Streeter: The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), who represents a coal mining area, has probably forgotten more about coal mining than I shall ever know; I recognise that. Conservative Members also have great experience of the coal mining industry. The debate is important and touches on issues that range wider than the specific issue of coal mining. I am delighted to make a brief contribution about the proposed sale by British Coal of non-operational and former mining sites.
A point that needs to be made is that we are discussing a much underrated benefit of privatisation. Privatisation has received a bad press in the past few months—perhaps deservedly—because of massive pay awards to directors of newly privatised companies. We should not, however, lose sight of the fact that, as a concept, privatisation has been enormously successful in terms of its major thrust for efficiency savings, profit and economic regeneration. That is an underrated advantage of privatisation. We need to ask ourselves whether, if British Coal was remaining in Government hands, we would be debating today the


release of this important land which can help in economic regeneration. I suspect that, sadly, the answer is that we would not.
Before coming into the House, when I was doing a real job, I spent much of my time advising companies on the purchase of other companies. From time to time, we came across companies, perhaps poorly managed or perhaps in the hands of one family for far too long, that did not even know what they owned. At completion meetings, when one started to delve into the asset register, it was obvious that some organisations did not know what they owned and did not use it properly. I suspect that that may have been the case with some of our nationalised industries. They did not maximise their assets and, in some cases, they did not even know what assets they had. That is fine if one is in Canada or Russia where land is plentiful. However, we live in a small island.
It is, therefore, important to recognise that we have a responsibility to maximise the use of our land wherever it may be. I believe that the proposals that we are debating today will enable us to make maximum use, for economic regeneration and for the advantage of our citizens, of land that has been in the ownership of British Coal for many generations. We should not lose sight of the fact that this opportunity would not be happening without privatisation.
This spring, we shall see the marketing of a huge portfolio of land and buildings. As the hon. Member for Sherwood said, 150,000 acres is a substantial amount of land. It is not chicken feed; it is, as my son would say, big cheese. There is housing land, agricultural land, office and commercial land and investment land and property. Some is tenanted and some comes with vacant possession. The land is in many areas where coal mining has been important for many generations. As the hon. Member for Sherwood said, it is important that we give fair terms to those who are currently tenants of the properties. I am all for value for money and for cracking down on public spending, but it is important, where the Government have an involvement, to play fair with people who are already involved in those properties.
I represent an area where the release of former Ministry of Defence land is a huge issue. It is important that the region benefits from the release of that land into the private sector. I urge the Minister to go the extra mile, where possible, to ensure that local people benefit. It would be a great shame if people coming from London or elsewhere snapped up all the bargains. We must let local people have a fair crack of the whip.
I hope that the release of land by British Coal will be a model that nationalised industries, privatised industries, Government Departments and next steps agencies can follow. I think especially of British Rail, which is going down a similar route towards privatisation. We know that vast areas of land and buildings currently owned by British Rail could be released into the private sector for the economic benefit of the nation. I have had some dealings with British Rail lawyers. It was pretty obvious to me that they did not know what they owned or what use could be made of it. It is important to maximise the assets of Government Departments and nationalised industries.
British Coal proposes to sell three categories of property, of which the first is housing. We often hear cries for 100,000 houses to be built each year. I repeat the point

that we are a small island. It behoves all of us to ensure, before we start building 100,000 houses a year—I reject the need for such numbers—to maximise the use of existing houses. Some of the houses that are to be released have tenants, which is an important point. I hope, however, that some of the houses that are currently vacant will be made available to local people to help to resolve the residential housing problems in the areas concerned.
The second category is agricultural land, some of which is tenanted. I make a plea to my hon. Friend the Minister. We must respect existing tenancies; that is a matter of law. However, we must also bend over backwards to help tenants who wish to acquire the freehold on advantageous terms. It is a happy coincidence that the release of the agricultural land is happening at the same time as the Government are introducing the Agricultural Tenancies Bill which will release enterprise in rural communities and allow far greater flexibility in the use of land. That will bring some of those regions to life.
There are sometimes hidden nuggets of gold. In the mining industry, one may tend to write off car parks and storage areas as unimportant. None the less, those areas can be released for important rural businesses, such as small factories, which fit nicely into the economic community and which create jobs. These areas are not exploited at the moment. Let the entrepreneurs come forward and make use of the Agricultural Tenancies Bill.
The third category is the 13,000 acres of land and buildings for commercial, office or investment use. Some 200 sites have a recognised development potential. That will be a great boost to the economy of the regions concerned and a great opportunity for inward investment. My part of the world is keen to have inward investment. One has, however, to make available land and buildings for inward investment. Here is an opportunity for former coal mining areas to attract inward investment which will create jobs for local people.
The timing is excellent because the economy is now going forward in a way that it has not done for a number of years. We had growth last year of 4 per cent., and we have low inflation, low interest rates, a competitive pound and falling unemployment. We have a great framework within which the land will be released to attract entrepreneurs, to attract inward investment and to create jobs for local people, especially for those who have been made redundant and who are looking for real jobs in which they can have a career.
After a few difficult years, enterprise is stirring again. People are thinking of setting up businesses again and more small businesses are being created. The release of British Coal land will help small businesses to get started. As the hon. Member for Sherwood said, it is important that small businesses are helped by the release of land because they are the life blood of any economic community. They have the answers to our unemployment problems in their hands. I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to make available special measures for small businesses.
We have all been concerned about the decline of the coal industry. I represent an area in which there has never been coal mining, yet I speak in the debate without apology because coal mining is in the national psyche of the United Kingdom. It is in our blood, as is fishing. When we debated the future of the coal mining industry a few years ago, there was much concern in my part of the world, as there was in every other part of the country.
Coal mining is dear to our hearts. But at least there is a silver lining in that cloud because the release of British Coal land will be of economic benefit to those regions.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Sherwood about speed. I have had experience of other Departments releasing land into the private sector and I am bound to say that the Ministry of Defence in Plymouth is extremely slow in releasing sites. We have been calling for the release of south yard at Devonport dockyard for years, and it has still not been released.
British Coal is driving the matter forward and setting the pace, which is important if economic regeneration is to take place.

Mr. Eric Insley: It might occur to the hon. Gentleman that British Coal sold land throughout the 1970s and 1980s. When Ian MacGregor was chairman of the National Coal Board, he decided that all British Coal property would be sold off. He set an 18-month timetable, but nobody could keep up with it. Tenants could not raise the money to buy, so were excluded from the sales. The hon. Gentleman says that there should be a longer time scale. I doubt it, because British Coal is pushing this forward rather quickly.

Mr. Streeter: I am glad to hear that British Coal has been selling assets for the past 20 years, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is a substantial package, the like of which we have not seen before. I simply meant that, if we have too long a time scale, nothing will happen. It is important that the matter is driven through.
I hope that the release of land by British Coal will be a model for other Departments and nationalised industries to follow. It is a hidden benefit of privatisation and is much underrated. I wish it well.

Mr. Martin Redmond: I am extremely grateful to be called in this important debate. Unlike the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), I have had a number of pits and tenanted licensee farms in my constituency.
The first paragraph of a letter that I received from a constituent says:
You will no doubt be aware of the controversy caused by the proposed sell off of British Coal's non-operational land. My family have been British Coal tenants and licensees for 50 years, and I would like to think that we have been good custodians of the land in the Dearne Valley, as have other tenants and licensees.
A problem arises because of certain assumptions that British Coal makes in terms of patches of land in the Dearne valley.
The British Coal chairman began with a large number of coal mines and employees. The industry has now been devastated, but the chairman continues to enjoy the salary that he had at that time. Will the Minister explain why?
Farmers are struggling to make a living, given all the problems associated with the agricultural world. British Coal is a publicly owned asset, so it is not for British Coal Enterprise to do as it pleases. The Minister must assume responsibility for ensuring that British Coal acts in a manner that befits the nation. I tabled a written question asking what action the President of the Board of Trade proposed to protect tenant farmers. The Minister replied:
The sale of British Coal's property is a matter for the Corporation.

But it is not when it causes problems for people who have been tenants for many years. I hope that he will instruct British Coal, in its negotiations, not to assume that certain portions of land are up for development. A number of farms on my patch are in the unitary plan but have no purpose other than farming. There are no proposals whatever to allow other developments on them. It is wrong for British Coal to hold a gun at those farmers' heads. I hope that the Minister will assure us, when he replies to the debate, that he will instruct British Coal to sell the land to those farmers who have expressed an interest.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Has the hon. Gentleman encountered the same concerns as I have encountered in Scotland? Tenant farmers are worried that the agents appointed by the board to sell farms may have an interest, after the sale, in factoring for a new purchaser rather than selling to the sitting tenant. As a result, the factor or agent will make more profit in the long term, but it is not in the interests of good farming and certainly not in the interests of the loyal tenants who have been there for many years.

Mr. Redmond: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but whether there is sleaze in Scotland, I do not know. I speak only for my patch.
Where we have good agricultural or coal land, it should be left. Many coal sites in south Yorkshire could be developed for housing or industry. One example, which the Minister is most welcome to visit, is the innovative Earth centre, which has been conceived on the old Cadeby pit site and is unique in Britain, and perhaps the world. Steps are now being taken to get it going. So there is potential in south Yorkshire for developments on derelict sites, and grants are available.
I hope that the Minister will assure us that tenants will be protected, because, under the unitary plan, their land continues to be designated for agriculture.

Mr. Michael Clapham: As the Minister is aware, the total land package to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) referred is estimated to be 150,000 acres. It comprises 110,000 acres of agricultural land; about 9,000 acres of land that will go for regeneration; and some 806 houses, 500 lock-up garages and 1,000 allotments valued, it is rumoured, at well over £100 million. Will the Minister clarify that when he replies?
During the passage of the Coal Industry Bill, we were given to understand that British Coal would pass residual land, together with all other liabilities, to the Coal Authority for administration. Clearly, that has not happened with the land. Why has it been decided that the land will not be administered by the Coal Authority but left to British Coal Properties to dispose of?
It is extremely important to mining communities that land available for potential industrial redevelopment should be developed in those areas. Had the land been passed to the Coal Authority, that body would have been in a much better position to consider passing the land on, in Scotland and Wales to the enterprise agencies, and in England to English Enterprise. The land could then have been developed with a view to creating jobs in mining


communities. That has not happened. Will the Minister consider whether some of the 9,000 acres of land of industrial development quality could be passed to agencies and perhaps also to local authorities, so that it could be developed to create jobs in mining communities?

Mr. Illsley: Does my hon. Friend share my fear that some of the development companies to which Conservative Members have referred, which want to buy British Coal land, will quote for greenfield agricultural sites rather than try to redevelop the old colliery sites which my hon. Friend and I have known throughout our careers in mining?

Mr. Clapham: My hon. Friend has made an important point. If that happened it would be a tragedy because a great deal of land in the coalfield communities could be regenerated without having to resort to greenfield sites.
I recently wrote to the Minister for Energy and Industry about 20 acres of woodland in Woolley colliery village. That village, like many others where collieries have been closed, has tended to be forgotten. Shops have closed, as has the community centre, and there is nowhere for people to meet. If that woodland was handed to the community there would be a real possibility of developing it into a nature reserve with nature trails, which would attract schools. It could also be used by social services and the probation services. That could be a viable project to regenerate the village and it would probably attract shops back to it. I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will say whether he would support that project. Given that many old colliery villages outside Yorkshire are close to similar land, would he be prepared to consider community involvement, perhaps in partnership with private interests, to develop it for the community?
Three welfare issues cause great concern to hon. Members who represent mining communities. First, what will happen to land that has been leased from British Coal by miners' welfare organisations? When we scrutinised the Coal Industry Bill in Committee, we were given to understand that those welfare organisations would be given the opportunity to receive that land or that it would be handed to the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. I hope that the Minister can clarify those arrangements and tell us whether he will ensure that land leased from British Coal by miners' welfare organisations is handed over to the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation.
I shall not dwell on the 806 houses to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood referred. However, I would expect the Minister to ensure that tenants are given the opportunity to buy those houses and, where they are unable to buy them, that housing associations and local authorities will step into the breach. I hope that he will encourage that, so that the effects of the earlier huge sell-offs by British Coal are not repeated.
I am also concerned about the future of allotments, but I shall leave that to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), who has a great knowledge of them.
My final concern relates to the proceeds of the sales. I hope that some of the money will be used to clean up the mining communities, especially pollution caused by mine

water. That money should be used for major regeneration projects in mining communities. I hope that the Minister will also be able to tell us that some of that money will be used to extend the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme, which the Government introduced in 1974, to make payments to men who have been awarded disablement benefit for chronic bronchitis and emphysema. The Minister will be aware of the great discrimination between people who suffer from those two diseases, which are caused by the same dust. That discrimination is quite illogical and the money would help to alleviate the problem.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: This has been a short debate and, in some respects, it has been a rerun of the one that we had in Standing Committee when we considered the Coal Industry Bill. The only difference is that this morning we have heard from a Conservative Member, whereas in Committee no Conservative sought to intervene. I do not think that today's proceedings were greatly enhanced by the speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), which betrayed his ignorance of the subject.
We are considering the disposal of a sizeable parcel of land—the biggest since the dissolution of the monasteries. I agree with the moving words of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) that many of British Coal's tenant farmers have fulfilled their responsibilities and are entitled to expect not only the right to buy, if appropriate, but the flexibility that will be required to obtain the money to purchase their properties.

Mr. Bill Etherington: My hon. Friend and I spent many hours in Committee considering the Coal Industry Bill. Does he agree that allotment holders, who have been referred to briefly, have also given great service to the industry, because they are invariably employees or former employees of the coal board? Is it not important that they are given the same security of tenure as tenant farmers because, in many cases, they are not only unemployed but impoverished and if they lost their allotments they would lose a great deal of the quality of their lives?

Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I had intended to speak about allotments and to give anecdotal evidence of their importance to our former colleague, Mick Welsh, who represented Doncaster, North for many years. He would spend the Easter recess at his allotment. He and I shared an office for 10 years and I used to get day-to-day reports on the condition of the various vegetables that he grew over 12 months.
I know that a great many miners, with great ingenuity, have devoted much of their leisure time to the development of their allotments. In some respects, they exemplified the old dictum of digging for victory. Many of those former miners are now quite old and those allotments are one of their last interests. It would be extremely unfortunate if they had to sacrifice their lives' work on the altar of commercialism.
A number of agricultural holdings are up for sale. I made representations to the Minister on behalf of Mr. Scobbie of Shannockhill farm in my constituency, and his


response was constructive. He should go a little further today and confirm that deals will not be subject to the current tight framework.

Ms Hilary Armstrong: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that British Coal has more tenant farmers in County Durham than anywhere else. On Monday night, 65 British Coal tenants of the county met and expressed their grave concerns about the sale prices and the means of sale employed by agents. The Minister for Energy and Industry and the chairman of British Coal have made it clear that tenants who have expressed serious interest in purchasing their freehold will be given first choice. Tenants in the county are anxious about what that means, because people who may have been unsure about the terms of sale and who held back from expressing an interest may be excluded. I hope that my hon. Friend will seek assurances from the Minister about those tenants.

Mr. O'Neill: My hon. Friend made the argument strongly. We all share that anxiety, because we have been approached by people who, in the main, are not wealthy and do not fit into any Euro-profile of agricultural fat cats. They are working tenant farmers, probably employing two or three people, perhaps only their family. They do not have considerable resources. They are taking one of the biggest financial steps in their lives. They wish to be reassured that they can do so in an orderly way, and they wish to be able to make proper financial provision. It would be foolhardy if, in pursuit of a fast buck, agricultural agents were to rush the process and farmers consequently took on financial commitments that they could not meet in the longer term.
Most hon. Members who represent mining constituencies have one overriding anxiety—unemployment and the under-use of resources locally. We are most disturbed lest a land bank is dispersed in a way that could be careless and open to mistiming, and we want several aspects to be taken into account.
British Coal Properties has nursed many parcels of land through the planning process, and has obtained money from Europe, from the European regional development fund and the like, through RECHAR, and so on. It has worked with local authorities. Those efforts could be blown to smithereens if the life-blood of public sector Euro-funding were to be cut off because land was transferred to the private sector. That is a worry.
We are anxious that we, as taxpayers, will not obtain a reasonable return for the money that has been spent on our behalf by the staff of British Coal Properties in nursing properties through the planning process. Properties might be at the stage immediately before the granting of planning permission, and therefore the land might not currently attract the proper value that it would as soon as planning permission was granted. We want an assurance from the Minister that clawback arrangements will be written into any contracts of sale, whereby we, as taxpayers, will be able to benefit from the improvements that we have already helped to fund, and so will provide us with a rich harvest in the future.
Our worry is that those parcels of land will be bought at an unrealistically low price because no planning permission has been granted, that permission will be quickly and easily obtained as a result of the work that

has already been done and that money will go into the pockets of developers rather than of those who have undertaken long-term programmes.
Arguments have been made about housing. Most of the 800 units would not fall into an estate agent's definition of desirable residences because they have already been sold off or are too expensive. We should like local authorities or housing associations to be given priority in improving those houses.
Other land falls into the category of miscellaneous open spaces. Hon. Friends have already referred to the importance of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation and the National Playing Fields Association being involved in sports and social clubs. Many representations were made from Nottingham, especially in Committee.
We have discussed allotments, but we need to consider other land that may not be attractive to commercial purchasers—unrestored tips and spoils that have not been properly dealt with but which should be given to people who know how to treat them. In the main, those are public sector authorities or local authorities. If they are to be given that land, they should be given proper financial help to enable them to meet their environmental responsibilities.
Some land is obviously contaminated and is being used for tipping and so on. Whoever assumes ownership of that land—I imagine that it would be attractive only to local authorities and the public sector in general—should be given proper resources to ensure that the monitoring of that polluted and contaminated land is conducted properly.
Some land will be dealt with according to the Moynihan guidelines. That undertaking was given by a previous Minister, and we want to ensure that the land will be properly accounted for.
This sale of land is one of the biggest sales that we have experienced in this country. It covers the agricultural sector, and working farmers who plan to continue their activities for some time need time to tackle their contractual problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has identified another small group—elderly farmers who perhaps want only another four or five years on the land before they retire. British Coal Properties and the Government owe a responsibility to those men. They should be treated appropriately and should not be hounded into making a decision. They are a special case, and should be given an extension of the lease to allow them to finish their working lives, to contribute to the agricultural well-being of the country.
We also want to ensure that tenant farmers, on whose land opencast mining is taking place, are given proper protection and guarantees that the rehabilitation of that land will be carried through with the rigour that was characteristic of the former owner, British Coal. People tend to forget that many of the tenancies were granted on the basis that opencast mining would take place. Opencast mining is being carried out in several places at the moment, but people are worried that, when it is completed, there will not be proper provision to ensure that the rehabilitation is to the standards that British Coal used to set.
I mentioned industrial development, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) gave examples from his region. Throughout the United Kingdom, there are anxieties about profiteering and about lost opportunities for the public sector to carry on the work that would attract RECHAR and ERDF funding, which would not be open to the private sector.
We want guarantees about the miscellaneous open spaces that could be swept under the carpet, the sports and social facilities, the allotments and the land that no one wants but which will require care and treatment beyond the responsibilities that the Coal Authority will have when it assumes ownership—no doubt when British Coal Properties and British Coal have washed their hands of it.
We welcome the opportunity that we have had for a debate this morning. In some respects, such debates are ideally suited to this format, although I wish that there had been more constructive comments from both sides of the House on the issue.
We are discussing communities that have suffered as a consequence of the run-down of the coal industry—a run-down of which the Government are at the centre, and for which they are largely to blame. We want to ensure that the last stages of disposal of the land are carried out humanely, in a way that will result in the economic regeneration of those communities, which have been scarred by the way in which the Government have run away from their responsibilities to coalfield communities.
This is the Government's chance. This is the Minister's opportunity, and we wait with interest to hear what he has to say.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Charles Wardle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on obtaining the debate. I agree that it is an important subject, as was obvious from the contributions to the debate. I share the feeling that there is much to discuss in such a short debate. I shall try to answer hon. Members' arguments in my general remarks, but if I do not answer all of them I shall write as soon as possible to hon. Members.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) for his thoughtful contribution. I am aware of the interest of my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) and of the interest of many Opposition Members, who have intervened or made contributions.
I shall begin by putting the issue of British Coal's remaining property portfolio in the more general context of the privatisation of the coal industry. For several years, it has been the Government's intention that the industry should return to the private sector—after expenditure of taxpayers' money of £20,000 million since 1979, either to cover losses or to help restructure the industry. We believe that in the private sector the industry will best be able to build on British Coal's substantial progress in productivity and efficiency in recent years and to secure its place in the competitive energy market.
As the House will know, the Government completed the sale of mining businesses last December. That represents a significant achievement in returning one of

our major industries to the private sector. The sale of British Coal's mining assets has laid firm foundations for the industry's future, but a number of other activities remain in British Coal's ownership for the time being. The residual property portfolio is only one among a number of what one might call the ancillary undertakings of the corporation, and British Coal has been pursuing a policy of disposing of its subsidiary businesses and activities with some success. I could explain what they are, but I shall move on because time is pressing.
Privatisation—whether of the mining businesses by the Government or of its own undertakings by British Coal—is bringing to an end a period of nearly 50 years in which coal has been a nationalised industry. The history of coal in this country goes back, of course, much further than that. In the course of its long life, the coal industry has acquired property for a variety of purposes, in many different areas across the country.
The property portfolio is extremely diverse, and hon. Members may find it interesting to take a look at the background of British Coal's current holdings. Some land that the corporation still owns was acquired as the property of the existing colliery companies at the time of nationalisation. Many sites have been acquired by British Coal with a view to possible future operational use. Some of the land is affected by subsidence, contamination or dereliction. Offices and other buildings, farms, woodland and recreational land are just some of the other categories of property that the corporation has built up over the years.
The portfolio has not been static. Some land, closely associated with continuing mining operations, has already transferred to the successor mining companies as part of the sale. Some land, which is likely to be used for, or in connection with, coal mining operations has been transferred to the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority, of course, is the newly established public sector organisation which, in addition to handling certain historic liabilities such as subsidence, deals with the licensing of future coal mining operations, and it will be able to make its land available for that purpose.
In addition to those properties that have already been transferred elsewhere, British Coal Properties has, for a number of years and with a good deal of success, pursued commercial sales of land that the corporation has not needed for operational purposes. In each of the past three years, sales have amounted to £30 million. However, even after that exercise, there is a large and diverse portfolio for which British Coal remains responsible. Altogether 7,000 properties remain in British Coal's ownership—making, in total, holdings of almost 150,000 acres. Opposition Members have emphasised the importance of carefully assessing the options for the portfolio's future. That is precisely what British Coal and the Government are doing, in the light of the many factors at work—not least of which is the need to ensure that value for money is obtained when properties are sold.

Mr. Redmond: Will the Minister make it clear that the value of the land is the current value, not what it might be in future? If it is agricultural land, it must be sold at agricultural prices, not at prices based on the prospect of any possible development plans, and it must be clearly defined as green belt land.

Mr. Wardle: I hope to make that distinction because as soon as I have dealt with the background I want to turn


to agricultural land, housing and recreational land—many of the issues that the hon. Member for Sherwood and other Labour Members rightly raised.
The need for continuing responsible ownership and management is clearly crucial to existing tenants of British Coal Properties who will want to be assured that the change in British Coal's status does not threaten the performance of obligations and duties which they would rightly expect of their landlord. That is equally important where there are liabilities attached to certain categories of land that require continuing management or where restoration and rehabilitation is still in progress. It is also of great importance for local communities where the land in question has development potential. There are many sites with potential for development, and it is important—as a number of Opposition Members have emphasised—that they should be brought back into productive use in the private sector as soon as possible, thus boosting local communities and encouraging businesses in those areas. In addition, British Coal has many properties of recreational value to local communities, on which I should like to say a few words.
I am in no doubt about the importance that people in coalfield areas attach to land which, over the years, has been leased by British Coal for sport and recreation. We are looking at more than 200 sites in towns and villages throughout England, Scotland and Wales. The issue involves not only miners' welfare schemes—to which the hon. Members for Sherwood and for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) alluded—but a host of other organisations and uses. The uses range from football pitches, cricket pitches, tennis courts and bowling greens, to the scouts, the guides and—as has been mentioned more than once—allotments. That matter is being given careful consideration—the importance of allotments is certainly not lost on me, and it will not be lost on British Coal.

Mr. Etherington: All that we are asking is that the Minister use his good offices with the coal board to ensure that allotment holders are given first choice of purchase of the facilities and the chance to join together—perhaps with their local district councils—to obtain the land rather than having it sold over their heads to private enterprise, which has, unfortunately, happened in the past.

Mr. Wardle: I recognise the importance of allotments. We are actively pursuing with British Coal options for the future of allotments. I shall ensure that the remarks made in today's debate are conveyed to the relevant parties—they will already have been noted by British Coal. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about that issue.
We are committed to preserving the nation's stock of recreational facilities wherever possible and ensuring that they are used. Hon. Members have mentioned the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation and the National Playing Fields Association—conversations continue with both organisations.
We have made it clear from the outset that we want to deal as sensitively as we can with recreational facilities that are now in the corporation's ownership. It is therefore our objective that land that is currently in active use for sport or recreation in its broadest sense should be retained for those purposes. We are continuing to discuss with British Coal how best to achieve that objective. Those detailed discussions on the possible mechanisms for

achieving our overall objective have yet to be concluded, but I hope that what I have said clarifies our position on that subject.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister said that we are talking about Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation land, as well as other land, and that consultations were still taking place. He mentioned the land, but I did not hear him say all the land. We would like the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation to remain intact—not just the land and the sports pitches, but all the other welfare facilities and those for the disabled that are administered by CISWO. Will the Minister ensure that he is consulted about all the facilities and organisational aspects of CISWO, not just part of it?

Mr. Wardle: I am absolutely certain that CISWO will make exactly the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made. I shall not predict the outcome of those discussions, but I have said that talks are continuing with CISWO and with the National Playing Fields Association.
A further category of property that does not form part of the current packages is that controlled by British Coal Enterprise. That includes managed workshops, light industrial units and office space throughout the coalfield areas. I recognise that those have played an important part in the regeneration of the coalfield districts, and British Coal Enterprise's job creation and regeneration activities have achieved much.
As the House will be aware, the long-term future of BCE is under review. We and British Coal are continuing to explore the options for the full range of services that it provides, and no final decisions have yet been taken. It is a matter that requires careful thought and deliberation. As Opposition Members have said, it is important to deliberate carefully, and not rush the decisions.

Mr. Tipping: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Wardle: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, with one eye on the time.

Mr. Tipping: British Coal Enterprise works in partnership with others. When seeking a partner, one looks for a long-term relationship, and early decisions about the future of British Coal Enterprise must focus on coalfield regeneration.

Mr. Wardle: It is important to have discussions early in the process. They are taking place now and I believe that sensible decisions will flow from them. I will pick up the pace slightly in view of the time and turn to housing.
In the light of its new functions, British Coal must make early progress with plans for the disposal of its holdings. Hon. Members will be aware of British Coal's press release of 11 January, which sets out its broad plans, but it might be helpful if I highlight the main points of the corporation's proposals.
British Coal is to dispose of its residual non-mining properties under three separate portfolios, which I would like to discuss briefly in turn. I hope that it will allow me to address the points that a number of hon. Members have raised this morning.
Those portfolios consist of housing, agricultural land and what British Coal has termed the commercial and development portfolio, which includes the vast majority of the rest of the corporation's properties. British Coal has announced its intention to sell the agricultural and housing


portfolios in broadly regional packages. No decisions have yet been taken about the packaging and disposal of the commercial and development land.
In the past, British Coal has owned huge numbers of houses. Many hon. Members will recall what were virtually "coal board villages". Over a number of years, some 80,000 of them have been sold, in large part as a result of British Coal's policy of selling to sitting tenants. I understand that, in the past, houses where there were full statutory tenants were offered for sale to those tenants, and that only a tiny number of expressions of interest—fewer than 10—remain outstanding. They are being attended to.
However, significant numbers of houses—up to 800—remain in British Coal's possession. Some of them are in vacant possession, but many are tenanted by miners, ex-miners and their dependants. British Coal intends to offer those houses to the market this spring in a number of regional packages, with a view to completing all the sales within a year.
It is important that those tenants continue to have the protection of responsible landlords as British Coal approaches the end of its life. I believe that the corporation's proposals to sell off the houses in broadly regional blocks will offer the best guarantee of early transfer to continued responsible management.
In that context, I welcome the assurances that the corporation has given me that, in assessing bids, it will take every step to satisfy itself that purchasers meet appropriate tests on viability and commitment to the future of the property which they are purchasing. In addition, it will consider carefully the approach adopted by those purchasers in the context of the interest that tenants may have in acquiring their freehold in future.
Agricultural land has been the subject of many hon. Members' remarks this morning. British Coal has a total of 110,000 acres of agricultural land, 85,000 of which is farmland, including farm buildings. That represents a substantial holding across the nation as a whole, not just in England, and the disposal of such a large portfolio is naturally of great interest to many people throughout the country. Some land is in British Coal's vacant possession, but much of it is occupied by sitting tenants.
As with its housing portfolio, it is British Coal's intention to offer that portfolio to the market in broadly regional packages. The precise composition of the packages is subject to finalisation in the light of advice from specialist property and agricultural advisers, but I understand that the corporation hopes to offer the first packages for sale this spring and to conclude all sales by the spring of 1996.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister ruling out the right of the tenant farmer to purchase land? If so, will he consider those cases where the tenant farmer may have been given a promise or a half promise that he could purchase land?

Mr. Wardle: I am coming to precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
I am aware of the concerns that were raised in many quarters while the corporation was considering the options for the future of that land. It is natural that many existing farming tenants will feel anxious about their position, but I hope that the announcements that have been made will largely remove that anxiety.
It is worth noting the protection that existing tenants have under statute. Under agricultural holdings legislation, full agricultural tenants have security of tenure, subject to the provisions of that legislation. In some cases, succession provisions apply that allow two further generations to succeed to the tenancy. There is no question of their legal rights under legislation being diminished in any way in the course of the disposal process through a change of landlord.
I can equally assure hon. Members that the Agricultural Tenancies Bill, which is before the House, does not affect the rights of existing tenants as it will apply only to new tenancies granted after its commencement.
Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said, there is an understandable desire among some tenants to achieve additional security and independence by purchasing their own freeholds. As one would expect, the Government have sympathy with that view, but it is important to bear in mind the needs of tenants who do not wish to do so, and for whom the overriding priority must be to continue to have responsible landlords who have a long-term interest in the properties they own and who are responsive to the needs of their sitting tenants. I believe that the policy that British Coal is pursuing strikes a satisfactory balance in responding to the needs and wishes of all its existing tenants.
As hon. Members know, those tenants who have already expressed an interest in purchasing their properties are being offered the opportunity to do so by British Coal. The hon. Members for Sherwood and for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) referred to that point. I know that British Coal has now written to all of those who expressed an interest in purchasing properties seeking confirmation of their position. When tenants confirm that they wish to proceed with the purchase of their property, in the majority of cases British Coal will take forward the process of sale. Of course, management of that process is a matter for British Coal, but I am aware that the corporation is anxious to make progress with the sales, and it is clearly in tenants' interests to assist it wherever possible.
The corporation's commercial and development portfolio includes a great variety of properties of various types, including sites with potential for early industrial or residential development, freehold offices, leisure properties, non-coal mineral extraction, waste disposal sites and others.
Some of those properties are still in the process of restoration or rehabilitation and others carry liabilities that may require on-going management. Ensuring that the treatment of those liabilities is not hindered in any way by the disposal process is clearly a key consideration, and one which is borne very much in mind.
I know that the corporation will have detailed negotiations with prospective purchasers about the sale of those properties. As part of its assessment of the bidders, it will take account of their suitability and it will want to be satisfied that the bidders have sufficient resources to meet the requirements. Local authorities and other bodies have wide-ranging powers to deal with any failure to comply with statutory requirements relating to liabilities, by which any purchasers will of course be bound.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I am sorry that I have not been able to attend for the whole debate. Kiveton


colliery in my constituency closed just before Christmas. Will British Coal lay down conditions about the development of that site—whether it be by the public or private sector—so that regeneration will be firmly fixed and, on that basis, there will be a clear price for the disposal of the land?

Mr. Wardle: The appropriate safeguards relating to identified development potential will be part of British Coal's consideration.
At this stage it is not possible to be more concrete about the proposals for the future of the property in the commercial and development portfolio, but I hope that I have been able to give some clarification about the nature of the corporation's plan on a broad level, and to explain some of the factors which we are currently considering where decisions have not yet been taken.

Mr. O'Neill: We suggested clawback arrangements because almost excessive profits would be achieved in relation to the original price. Will the Minister give an assurance that the contracts will take proper account of that?

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point and I can assure him and the House that the need for clawback arrangements will be considered carefully in all cases.
In the time available I have not been able to respond to every question. I repeat my assurance that I shall write to hon. Members when I have read the debate and seen which points need specific answers. I carefully noted the views that were expressed and the House has had the opportunity of hearing a careful deliberation about a most important subject.

Urban Road Congestion

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I am pleased to have the opportunity to come to the House today and open a debate on such an important subject as the medical effects of traffic congestion, particularly in urban and semi-urban areas. I understand that, only this morning, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London has been giving evidence to the Environment Select Committee on volatile organic compounds, so the debate has an element of topicality, apart from its long-term importance.
Equally, we all have constituents—I mean constituents rather than professional lobbying bodies such as Friends of the Earth—who are greatly concerned about the potential effects of car pollutants, vehicle pollutants and urban congestion. Whether that concern comes from a mother who pushes her child in a pram at ground level and worries about the effect of exhaust fumes on her child, whether it is a commuter driving his car at 6 mph and imbibing all the fumes, or whether it is a cyclist or a pedestrian, it is matter of great importance for everyone in Britain.
There has been a step change in people's priorities in this matter. I understand that in the 1940s and 1950s the principal concerns were hydrocarbons, sulphur and particulates from coal burning, which were mainly the result of industrial processes. The Clean Air Act 1956 substantially improved matters and they have continued to improve.
The Clean Air Act, however, led to a certain complacency about the effects of urban congestion. In 1979, the Department of Transport wrote to the Clean Air Council as follows:
The effects of pollution by motor vehicles can be summarised; there is no evidence that this type of pollution has any adverse effects on health.
Sixteen years on, we look slightly askance at that proposition, although it is difficult to establish direct causal relationships between urban congestion and pollution, and health effects.
Generally, the health effects are multi-faceted, as a variety of different atmospheric and allergic conditions have to be taken into account. Although one would not want to say that research is tentative, nevertheless it must always be regarded with caution. However, there is no doubt that for certain groups of the population-people with atopic illnesses such as asthma, eczema and hay fever, smokers, elderly people, children and people with respiratory problems—there is a significant causal relationship between certain pollutants and those conditions.
I am delighted that the Government have acknowledged that. For instance, the Minister of State, Department of Environment, who has been giving evidence to the Environment Select Committee today, mentioned
the growing links between air pollution and health.—[Official Report, 3 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 432.]
On 14 February 1994, the Under-Secretary of State for Health spoke about the Medical Research Council institute for environment and health and the fact that it regarded as a first priority the health effects of air pollution, particularly air pollution by motor vehicles.
It is not surprising that that has spawned a variety of expert groups on air pollution and health. I am grateful to the Ashden trust, which last year held a conference and


managed to bring together many of the documents recently produced on that important subject, which are often difficult to obtain.
Let me give the House an idea of who is involved. The Advisory Group on the Medical Aspects of Air Pollution Episodes and the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants report to the Department of Health. The Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards and the Quality of Urban Air Review Group advise the Department of the Environment. The Photochemical Oxidants Review Group also advises the Department of the Environment.
Other bodies are involved, such as the Office of Science and Technology, which produced a report entitled "Breathing in our Cities—Urban Air Pollution and Respiratory Health". In 1991, the Royal Commission on environmental pollution also examined the problem.
A great deal of private sector and university-oriented research is being carried out. The university of Bristol has done some valuable work, particularly on the effects of benzine on leukaemia and polonium 210 which was featured recently on a Channel 4 programme about radioactivity in children's teeth.
The university of Birmingham has done an enormous amount of work, especially on the levels of particulates, which are mainly from diesel fumes, and their correlation with the death rate, particularly in asthmatics and elderly people.
It is small wonder that such eminent groups have produced a massive array of evidence—some of it contradictory. Let me give the House a flavour. "Urban Air Quality in the United Kingdom" was produced in 1993 by the Department of the Environment, which also produced "Air Quality-Meeting the Challenge" last month. "Improving Air Quality" is another such document.
The Select Committee on Transport examined transport-related air pollution in London only last year, as did the Royal Commission in 1991. There is a plethora of reports. Ploughing through The Lancet and other academic and high-minded reports gives one an idea of the complexity of the problem.
First, it might be helpful if I mentioned the evidence on congestion. There is no doubt that congestion in Britain is growing. Between 1972 and 1992, the numbers of cars and light vans doubled and the numbers of heavy goods vehicles on our roads rose by half, totalling between 22 million and 23 million vehicles. By the year 2025—the problem will not go away—it is estimated that car use and car numbers may well double again.
In addition, people not only have more cars, but, on average, they travel further. In 1986, the average mileage per vehicle was about 5,320 miles a year, and by 1991 it was 6,475 miles a year. Of course, that has produced congestion.
In London, although there is some evidence that congestion may be improving a little faster, as the Secretary of State said last week in his evidence to the Select Committee on Transport, Department of Transport statistics show that in 1977–79, the average speed in the central area at peak time was 12.3 mph. By 1990–94 it was down to 10.2 mph. When one compares that to the speed achieved by a motorised postal van in 1912 of only 7 mph, one wonders how much progress there has been

in road transport in our urban areas—not just in London but in Birmingham and other areas, such as Kidderminster in my constituency.
There are flows of 21,000 vehicles a day on the Wolverhampton and Birmingham road. If traffic speed is reduced from 12 mph to 6 mph, fuel consumption increases 50 per cent. There is an exponential growth, the lower the speed. The amount of road works and cabling that one sees in London and major cities shows that such congestion will not lessen. The Government document "Air Quality—Meeting the Challenge" stated:
In urban areas, road transport is the principal source of pollution.
I do not want to inundate the House with statistics, but between 1980 and 1990, 51 per cent. of nitrogen oxides were caused by transport, and they had increased by 72 per cent. Vehicles accounted for 47 per cent. of black smoke, which had increased by 75 per cent. Ninety per cent. of carbon monoxide emissions were caused by transport and they rose by 46 per cent. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is well briefed on volatile organic compounds. Thirty seven per cent. came from vehicles and they rose by 12 per cent. during the same 10-year period. There is evidence of some improvement since 1990, but from relatively high levels. Faced with the expected huge increase in car and heavy goods vehicle ownership over the next 15 years, that remains a matter of concern.
There is a significant problem not only in determining causality but in accumulating evidence of links between any particular pollutant and health risk. Monitoring is one difficulty. As the Select Committee on Transport reported two years ago, there seems little continuity between central and local authority monitoring. Smoke and sulphur dioxide monitoring is done at 250 sites by 151 authorities, and nitrogen dioxides are monitored by 300 local authorities. Although there is a consultation paper on air quality monitoring networks, enormous work must be done adequately to integrate monitoring in the UK.
Improvements in vehicle emissions in one respect may worsen them in another. Unleaded petrol was seen as a way of significantly reducing a poison—lead—in the air, and has been successful in cutting the volume of lead from 8,000 tonnes to 2,000 tonnes a year. Unfortunately, greater use of converters has increased benzene emissions, which are themselves a recognised carcinogenic that may lead to leukaemia. Diesel was also regarded as a good way of improving the environment. In 1993, the number of diesel-engined cars in the UK increased from 5 to 20 per cent. That has reduced carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions, but those of carbon particulates—such as PM10, which can enter the lungs—are considerably worse.
Arguments within the scientific community soon become evident. In 1992, Professor Hallgate, chairman of the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, did not believe that diesel particulates posed a danger to health. By 1994, he was saying:
There is convincing evidence of a link between mortality and PM10.
That is a volte face if ever I saw one, and shows the problems. It is difficult to isolate cause and effect, particularly under different environmental conditions and given varying individual medical conditions.
The problem is exacerbated by inconsistency in pollutant measurement. There are variations between acceptable levels of ozones, nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide as between the UK, World Health Organisation and European Union. We should consider how standards should be made both more comprehensive and consistent.
I said that, subject to certain caveats, I would describe the effects on health of 10 principal pollutants emitted by cars and heavy goods vehicles. These conclusions came from a symposium by the Ashden trust last year. Nitrogen dioxide may exacerbate asthma and possibly increase susceptibility to infection. The particulate PM10 is directly related to city mortality rates and is associated with a wide range of respiratory symptoms. Long-term exposure can be associated with increased risk of death from heart or lung disease.
We all know that carbon monoxide is lethal at high doses, and even at low levels can impair concentration and neuro-behavioural functions. Ozone has been widely publicised. Although it is a secondary pollutant created by the interaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, it irritates the eyes and air passages, and it can significantly sensitise people with allergenic and atopic problems. That is one reason why, in recent years, we have seen a huge increase in the number of asthma referrals by general practitioners.
Pollution has severe consequences. It is estimated that particulates can cause 10,000 premature deaths a year. The incidence of childhood asthma has doubled since the 1970s. Around 155 children suffering from asthma are taken to hospital every day, and there are 3 million asthma sufferers in the UK. The carcinogenic effects of benzene and lead have been well known for some time but are impossible to quantify accurately.
It would be wrong to ignore the fact that much progress has been made. Since 1990, pollution caused by cars and traffic congestion has fallen. The introduction of the catalytic converter after 1993—partly due to European Community directive 91/441—has led to an estimated 70 per cent. reduction in hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide. It is slightly disappointing that only 3 million of the UK's 18.9 million cars have catalytic converters fitted. It will be 2010 before the whole fleet is similarly equipped.
In March 1994, the European Union agreed to improve significantly control of diesel particulates from 1996. That should mean a reduction of about 55 per cent., and a 95 per cent. reduction from 1970 levels when the measures are implemented. It is anticipated that there will be further reductions by the year 2000.
I have already mentioned the progress made with unleaded petrol which in urban areas has led to a significant reduction in the amount of lead—a deadly poison—in the air. Nevertheless, about 2,000 tonnes a year are still emitted. Some progress has been made and we hope that it will continue.
I shall conclude by making one or two suggestions about particular courses of action that the Government could be taking to improve the position on car pollutants and thereby, on the best possible evidence, reduce the ill effects on our health caused by congestion. I do not claim to be comprehensive because this is a wide-ranging topic involving traffic management and planning policy but I shall nevertheless put forward one or two ideas.
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport last year had a blitz on what he called the "gross polluters". I am not sure that the figures are entirely accurate but the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said that about 85 per cent. of the most noxious pollutants come from those gross polluters. In other words, a very small proportion of vehicles cause the vast majority of the damage. It is therefore worrying that Britain apparently has the second oldest truck fleet in Europe, second only to that of Greece.
It is also worrying that so much of the pollution, especially in London, is caused by local transport vehicles. Although discussions are taking place with the Department of Transport, it was announced last year that the new Iveco diesel engines in the revamped buses did not meet even the latest European regulations. There was a six-week campaign late last year but I believe that such a campaign should be made permanent.
We need better co-ordination between the Department of Transport, the Vehicle Inspectorate and local authorities which, through environmental legislation, have increasing responsibility for monitoring and control of pollution. They should be given even more power, not only in London but outside, to stop vehicles that are patently polluting the atmosphere and to remove them from the road. That would have a very great impact, and very quickly, on the gross polluters.
Urgent consideration, with tax breaks if necessary, should be given to the retro-fitting of exhaust control equipment on the older diesel buses in urban areas. If the diesel engines in buses are causing pollution, especially through particulates and volatile organic compounds, that particular problem needs to be solved urgently.
Clearly, the Government could be considering a variety of other suggestions and we could be moving a little faster on them. Reformulated gasoline now has about a third of the American market and it is estimated to reduce emissions of benzene—a carcinogenic—by between 15 and 20 per cent., together with emissions of other hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Reformulated gasoline is a little more expensive than normal petrol but perhaps the duty on it could be reduced to make it more attractive to the consumer. As has been proved in America, it would have a significant effect on our pollution problem.
Some relevant work has been carried out by Johnson Matthey which, when it heard that I had secured this debate, wrote to me—perhaps for not wholly disinterested motives. It mentioned its "continuously regenerating trap" which, it states, can reduce carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and particulates emitted by large diesel vehicles. The company provided me with information about Sweden where there seem to have been significant improvements as a result of its product. The company recently carried out tests on 10 CRT units in Gothenburg. The technical director of Swebus, Leif Magnusson, said that tests had shown massive reductions in emissions: a 98 per cent. reduction in carbon monoxide emissions, a 96 per cent. reduction in the emission of hydrocarbons, and a 92 per cent. reduction in particulates. I urge the Minister to work on that possibility, which could be used to reduce the emissions of the grossest polluters.
Congestion is a very serious problem. I know that, in his evidence to the Select Committee on Transport last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was a little cagey—understandably—about a forthcoming report


on road pricing and its implications. The implications may be the opposite to what one expects but the idea needs to be followed up, and planning policy guidance 13 issued by the Department of the Environment on the interrelationship between planning and transport is a good step forward.
From the evidence that I have, it seems that the advice that the Government are getting through the Departments of Transport, of Health and of the Environment and the Office of Science and Technology should be better co-ordinated. There is a plethora of such evidence coming from all directions. Some of it is contradictory but it still needs to be better co-ordinated. Whether the Environmental Protection Agency would be the ideal body to do that is a matter for debate. However, the Environmental Protection Agency should have a role in ensuring consistency of measuring which, as I said, is not evident among the EU, the World Health Organisation and the United Kingdom.
Finally, our targets should also be extended. I understand that, at the moment, there are national standards for only about four of the 10 main vehicle pollutants. There are advisory standards but they should be put on a mandatory basis as far as possible, thus showing that the Government are giving a lead, which I am sure that they are in many other respects.
I have spoken for 25 minutes, which is quite long enough. I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. This is a very important topic to every man, woman and child, especially in urban areas. It will not go away and will not necessarily get better so I urge the Government, as a matter of urgency, to consider some of my recommendations.

Mr. Peter Snape: The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) for affording us the opportunity to debate, albeit briefly, this important topic and doubly grateful for the riveting half-hour to which he has just treated us.
There is no doubt that this subject quite properly exercises the minds of those of us interested in transport matters. I fear that the hon. Gentleman was not quite as critical as he might have been of Government policy because, whatever the Government say about their green credentials—no one could accuse the Secretary of State of being green—they do not show much sign of them when it comes to legislation.
Over the past 15 years, the Government have been content to increase the permitted size of heavy goods vehicles three times and to increase the maximum speed at which they are permitted to travel once. That has clearly helped to increase the total number of heavy goods vehicles on our roads. We assume that the latest European Community proposals will be accepted. We usually fight a rearguard action but there are now 44-tonne lorries on our roads. If the latest EC proposals are accepted, the millions of pounds of public money being spent on strengthening bridges will have to be justified by a further increase in heavy goods vehicles, especially the heaviest travelling the greatest distances, which will again help to undermine rail freight and transfer even more from rail to roads.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest pointed out that much urban pollution is caused by public transport, and rightly drew attention to the pollution caused in this city and others by local bus services. Before the Prime Minister denounces me again, let me declare my interest as a non-executive director of West Midlands Travel, which I believe is currently Britain's third largest bus company.
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman, but I must add—especially as the Minister for Transport in London is to reply—that the position is hardly surprising, given the effects of deregulation in major towns and cities. Some of the oldest and most clapped-out vehicles in western Europe are running around for 12 hours a day, bleeding passengers from the more profitable routes and undermining the network services provided by West Midlands Travel and other companies. Obviously that will add to urban pollution.
What one of the Minister's predecessors described as the benefits of deregulation have yet to spread to London. I am not surprised, but I hope that the Minister will use his undoubted power and influence as a senior member of Her Majesty's Government to try to improve the position in many towns and cities. For instance, he could consider Government assistance for companies such as the one with which I am associated, which would like to introduce buses powered by natural gas. It is not fair to expect reputable companies to tackle urban pollution problems if at the same time they must compete with fly-by-night operators which have been attracted to the business since the enactment of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act last year.
The Government claim to be more concerned about pollution and the environment nowadays. They say that they have urged local authorities—particularly in the west midlands—to adopt a "package" approach in their annual transport supplementary grant applications, including some public transport schemes. That would undoubtedly help to tackle the problem. In the west midlands, we have made a bid for funds for the Midland Metro—the light rail system, one of whose lines will run through my constituency—the first priority in our annual TSG application. Year after year, having encouraged local authorities to adopt a "package" approach, the Department of Transport has cherry-picked the road schemes of which it approves and provided the full amount needed for their funding; meanwhile, the Midland Metro remains in abeyance for want of public money.
That does not illustrate any great desire on the part of the Department of Transport to tackle urban pollution. Following the latest bid for funds, the Secretary of State has said that it is up to local authorities to find the cost of the Midland Metro—some £30 million. That is unfair, because local authorities, especially in the west midlands, have managed to find a considerable amount from their own resources to finance schemes that will help to alleviate the problems to which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest referred. They have, for example, spent £28.5 million on the new Jewellery line through Birmingham's jewellery quarter, thus providing a third cross-city railway line with little assistance from the Department of Transport. Yet they are continually denied adequate resources for the Midland Metro and other public transport schemes that would do so much to lessen pollution and congestion in the west midlands.
Let me now turn to a more parochial topic, and appeal to the Minister to note what is happening on the ground—regardless of what he or his Back Benchers may say about their desire to alleviate the problem of pollution and congestion in urban areas. I have mentioned our failure to secure cash for the Midland Metro; one organisation in the west midlands, however, need not worry about cash. I refer to the Black Country development corporation. If road builders are appointed to a quasi-public body and millions of pounds of public money are chucked at them, obviously they will build roads—and that is what the Black Country development corporation has done and is doing, like other development corporations throughout the country. The building of roads, of course, helps to create the very congestion and pollution of which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest complains, and which the Minister will presumably deplore in a sympathetic manner very shortly.
In my constituency—thanks to public money—the Black Country development corporation, despite obvious public transport needs, is currently building the black country route and spine road. The road runs through West Bromwich, and will cause enormous pollution and congestion there. It will also virtually split the town in half because of the road works and the congestion that will unquestionably result once the route has been completed. It will join junction 1 of the M5 with junction 10 of the M6. No one needs to be a great map reader to work out that the best way to avoid all the congestion currently afflicting the junction of the M5 and M6 is to take the alternative route—the spine road and the black country route. West Bromwich will suffer from massive congestion and pollution. Concern has already been expressed to the local authority and to me, but the development corporation, predictably, has ignored it.
There are schools along the route, including Cronehills primary school in my constituency. The headmistress has already told me of her fears about existing lead levels in the bodies of pupils; already—especially on Friday afternoons and during the evening rush hour—there is considerable congestion outside the school. Heaven knows what it will be like when the route is completed, but we can make a guess when we see the congestion on the midland links with the M5 and M6.
The Government could take steps to tackle the problem, if only they were serious; but of course they are not. Whatever lip service they pay to the problems of congestion and pollution, they adopt policies year after year—whether inadvertently or not—which add to those problems. This country almost worships the heavy goods vehicle, for example: there are very few restrictions on their use.
Our planning policies appear to be designed to encourage major companies such as John Lewis and McDonalds—I take those two at random—to deal with as many lorry deliveries as possible every day. They regard keeping stock on their premises as uneconomic, arid the community must pay for their attitude. Day after day, heavy goods vehicles can be seen on the high streets with their indicator lights flashing, making deliveries to stores such as those that I have mentioned. They are by no means the only guilty parties, however. We must tackle the over-use of HGVs: we must apply restrictions, especially in our towns and cities.
I hope that the Minister will give us some hope, particularly in regard to the development of pollution-free public transport vehicles. There is no doubt that over-reliance on motor vehicles in general and HGVs in particular is the cause of many of the problems that we are debating, and—unless there is a dramatic change in Government policy—will be the cause of exactly the same problems, and debates on them, for many years.

Mr. Piers Merchant: There is undoubtedly great and growing concern about the impact on health of pollution from road vehicles. I am particularly aware of that, as I represent an urban constituency in the London area. Although my constituency is in an outer London borough, it is noticeable that the increase in traffic, and the perception of pollution, have been even greater in outer London than in inner London.
Last summer and summer before, there was published evidence of sudden episodes of high pollution levels, and especially of ozone in the atmosphere in the Bromley area. There followed a good deal of public concern about the impact on asthma, particularly in children. So I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) on bringing the debate to the House. I also congratulate the Government on the action that they have already taken, although the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) gave it limited acknowledgement. In fact, only on 19 January, the Department of Transport announced a series of measures to improve considerably the monitoring of pollutants and to take practical and reasonable steps to deal with the problem that they create. I also pay tribute to the London borough of Bromley, which has taken a lead in setting up monitoring facilities and working with other London boroughs to draw attention to pollutants and keep more accurate statistics.
We are debating a complex subject and I shall refer briefly to four areas which are of particular importance. It is important that research is conducted to obtain accurate data on which to make decisions. One has to separate myth from reality, since it is easy to panic or pursue unproductive methods of research, perhaps because one perceives problems where there is none or one fails to see problems where they are severe.
I emphasise the need to improve collection of data on all pollutants. The Government initiative announced a couple of weeks ago makes great strides in that direction, although it is a little late. It is a pity that the figures were not collected earlier.
Bromley has played an important part in setting up the London Air Quality Network. Indeed, a monitoring station just outside my constituency permanently monitors the level of nitrogen oxides, ozone and carbon dioxide and feeds the statistics into an overall databank, and one of five passive diffusion tubes, which are especially effective in collecting information about benzene, a particular risk to health, is at Royston school in my constituency.
There are plans to extend that monitoring further, but the process is already yielding valuable results. On 6 June 1993, for example, the ozone level in Bromley reached the Department of the Environment's "poor" level of 110 parts per billion, to which the sixth report of the Select Committee on Transport, entitled "Transport-Related Air Pollution in London" referred. That information was not


previously known and forms a good basis on which to assess where action needs to be taken to improve or do away with the problem.
More research is also needed on the health implications. At present, much research is uncertain and based on supposition about a correlation between figures which may appear to match but do not provide direct evidence of links. Much research is needed to establish whether there are clear links or chance correlations of statistics. The data available on carcinogens are far more clear, as they have been researched a great deal more, but limited research has so far been conducted into the impact of other by-products of urban congestion. Indeed, some by-products have not been fully charted. It is noticeable that in science, especially in chemistry, a solution may appear to have been found and is discovered later to produce an equally bad by-product that was not anticipated, as I shall illustrate.
The most fundamental and important area of research is technical innovation. The means by which engines may run more cleanly and alternative means of propulsion may be introduced must, ultimately, be the key; the answer to which the statistics on health and pollution draw attention. Oxygenates are added to fuel to prevent knocking. Lead was the most famous oxygenate but is rightly out of favour because of the risk that it poses to health.
The next chemical which was added to petrol in greater amounts, although it was always present, was benzene. However, benzene is a well-established carcinogen, for which there is no safe level. Yet, super-premium unleaded petrol is estimated to contain 16 per cent. more aromatics than ordinary four-star petrol. Action should be taken to ban the use of super-premium unleaded petrol as it clearly poses a potentially severe health risk. An upper aromatic level should be imposed on all forms of fuel and a greater emphasis placed on the use of catalytic converters capable of removing some of the most dangerous pollutants from combustion products.
Other additives such as ethanol—alcohol—are used almost entirely to fuel cars, and, no doubt, for other purposes, in Brazil. That was once thought to be a clean fuel, but it has since been demonstrated that it produces dangerous by-products, so more work needs to be done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East have already referred to diesel fuel. Diesel was once thought to be clean, but that too has unfortunate by-products, especially particulates. One has only to go near the long line of taxis queueing at Victoria station, their engines running even though they are stationary, pumping out vast quantities of black exhaust fumes, to feel the pollutant effect. At the least it is highly discomfiting; at the worst it must pose considerable risks, especially to people who suffer from asthmatic or bronchial-related diseases, which are more noticeable in the summer.
Action should be taken to cut unnecessary queueing by diesel vehicles—buses as well as taxis—as is clearly the case at Victoria, and to encourage engines to be turned off when the vehicle is stationary. There is no reason why there should not be a limit on the number of taxis queueing at Victoria station and why engines should not be allowed to run when taxis are stationary. The problem at Victoria is severe, but an example only of the problem present elsewhere.
There is no point in monitoring or establishing standards unless they are adequately enforced. Enforcement should be checked and action taken if checks reveal that pollution is above the acceptable level. Stricter MOT tests, higher standards and better indicators should be introduced. I favour, for example, the use of constant monitoring devices in vehicles so that the driver would be aware if something were to go wrong with the anti-pollution controls. I favour the use of pre-heated catalytic converters which overcome emissions from cold engines. Specifically, I would like greater random roadside monitoring and would be keen to give local authorities new powers of enforcement via a fixed-penalty system. It would be self-financing, give extra authority to local councils and enable them to concentrate on the greatest problems.
It is important that we approach the problem from a scientific point of view. Despite all the concerns, we should not act purely on an understandable emotive reaction, but in a measured manner to tackle effectively the problems identified by scientific evidence. We need realistic, practical and sensible solutions. The Government are on course, but I encourage them to continue taking action so that we may deliver to people, especially the long-suffering dwellers of our urban areas, the clean air that is rightfully theirs.

Mr. Tony Banks: I agree with almost every word that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) said, which perhaps should worry both of us—but on a subject such as this there is much cross-party agreement. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will respond to some of the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked.
It is not much of an exaggeration to say that the air quality in London is disgusting. Some people believe that it is best to chew the air in this capital city before breathing it. I am fortunate enough to travel to many other European cities, so I can make comparisons. I know that that is anecdotal evidence, but the witnesses are my own lungs and if they tell me that I can breathe more easily in Paris or in New York I must believe them: it is a fact. I know that there are cities such as Tokyo and Manila in which the air quality is even more disgusting, but surely we are trying to measure ourselves not against the worst cases in the world but against some of the better examples.
To continue my odyssey for a moment, I have just returned from a visit to Antarctica, where the air quality was magic—absolutely wonderful. It throws the issues into stark contrast when one can make such comparisons. It seems funny that down in the Antarctic people are worried about the hole in the ozone layer whereas in London we are worried about the ozone at ground level. It is a pity that we cannot get the ozone to go up where it belongs and where it will be useful, instead of damaging us on the ground.
One can feel the pollution in London. I can tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am an exceedingly clean person. [Laughter.] It is true; you could eat your food off my body, Mr. Deputy Speaker—although I hasten to add that that is not an invitation. Judging by the look on your face, it would not be an invitation that you would take up were I to extend it to you. When one takes off one's shirt at night, knowing that one has bathed and showered and


everything, yet the dirt is still ingrained on the collar, one can see what the quality of the air is like in London. When we lick our lips and can feel how dirty they are—and when we have to get the dirt off our faces when we take our make-up off at night—we realise how bad the air is here.
Pollution in London has changed over the years. I am old enough to remember the pea-souper fogs of the 1950s, and so is my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). I remember those fogs well, and I must remember to ask the Prime Minister about those days, because we are both Brixton boys, although my behaviour in Brixton was somewhat more exemplary than his. We used to wait until the road was dug up, take out the tarry blocks and put them in the grate to burn. The amount of filth coming out of the chimneys made the smogs unbelievable; the 1952 smog was responsible for killing about 4,000 people.
Then Parliament took action and passed the Clean Air Act 1956. Authorities such as the London county council could take a strategic overview, test air quality and enforce the regulations, and the air quality in London improved dramatically.
Now there is a new threat, which hon. Members have already identified—the photochemical smog created by vehicle emissions. There has been an enormous increase in the incidence of asthma. At my advice surgery in Newham many parents tell me about their asthmatic kids. That may be anecdotal evidence, but it is none the less powerful. We know what is happening, and it is estimated that about 1 million Londoners are at risk of suffering from asthma. Something must be done.
In my area of the east end we live between main roads. Newham occupies three strips of land along the Al 1 and the A13, and the air quality there is appalling. When people go from there into the centre of London, where the air quality is equally bad, they realise how much of their time they are spending in a potentially lethal atmosphere.
I do not believe that the Government are doing enough. There is not enough co-ordination between the Department of Health, the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment in monitoring the health effects of poor air quality and in taking the necessary action to reduce emissions.
Clearly congestion and the growth of motor traffic have created many of the problems. In other cities I have also noticed that in places such as New York there are air quality reports every day. We are not given that information in London. Why not? The Minister looks as if he does not agree with me, and it is true that we are told occasionally, but only occasionally. I believe that the Minister himself suggested on the radio that we al 1 stay at home on one particular day, because the air quality in central London was so bad.
I get the feeling that we are not being told either because not enough is known about the air quality, or because the Government know how bad it is but do not want to tell Londoners in case they are panicked into thinking that if they go out on the streets they will all drop dead. Perhaps the Minister will check on the availability of the information, but we certainly do not have the regular checks that we hear on local radio stations in the United States and other countries.
Hon. Members have already mentioned what happened at certain times in 1992, 1993 and 1994, when there were great upsurges of emergency referrals to hospitals of

people with asthmatic, bronchitic and other respiratory problems caused by poor air quality. We know all about that. One has only to go out into Parliament square, especially in summer when the build-up of photochemical smog is combined with a total lack of air movement, to know how bad the atmosphere is. Visitors to London continually complain about that, and we cannot continue to ignore it.
Because the local authorities in London did not feel that the Government were doing enough, the Association of London Authorities, the London Boroughs Association and the South East Institute of Public Health formed the London Air Quality Network. That was good to see, and as a result we are now getting a far better picture of the overall quality of the air. The monitoring stations that the Government maintain are not enough, and they are also in the wrong places. Now, because of the initiative of London local authorities, both Conservative and Labour, we are getting a better picture of air quality—and it worries us. What co-operation do the Department of Transport and other Departments extend to the London Air Quality Network, which is doing such excellent work?
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East has already said what causes some of the problems. There are the clapped-out buses and the filthy taxis, for a start. There is simply not enough investment in new London buses, and we can all see the filthy buses driving around. In my day at the Greater London council when it was responsible for transport we would not have allowed buses to go around polluting the atmosphere of London. We had much higher levels of engine maintenance, and clearly those are required now, yet they are not being practised.
We need a coherent strategy for transport in London. In the United Kingdom we have one of the highest mileages per car and one of the lowest levels of rail freight. That is the problem. There are too many vehicles on the roads, especially heavy vehicles carrying goods around London.

Mr. Martin Redmond: When my hon. Friend talks about congestion on the roads causing health problems, is he aware of the number of heavy goods vehicles that come in from the continent with a tremendous number of defects? Roughly 20 per cent. of those vehicles come from the continent with defects that are hazardous to health. Because of the congestion, is that not likely to result in more pollution-related deaths?

Mr. Banks: Yes. A test carried out in London last September or October showed that up to 20 per cent. of vehicles could not satisfy the MOT test emissions standard. There are already too many heavy vehicles on our roads because of the lack of a coherent policy for getting freight off the roads and on to the railways. All those heavy vehicles should be stopped at the port of entry and tested before they are allowed on our roads. When the Minister replies, will he tell us whether that already happens?
The hon. Member for Beckenham talked about local authorities having more power. There is a Bill now before the House of Lords which would enable local authority officers to test vehicles and, if they did not satisfy the MOT test standard for emissions, to refuse to allow them to continue their journey. Some people say that that would cause a civil liberties problem, but I do not agree. I am more concerned about my liberty to breathe decent clean


air. If a vehicle were not up to standard I would not simply say, "Don't drive it." I would take it down to the crusher and give it back to the driver in a small neat cube. That is one way of dealing with the problem, although I doubt that it will appeal either to the Opposition Front Bench or to the Government. I hope that the Minister does not give us his usual highly competent emollient. One knows that he is the most proficient bullshitter that the Government have, but on this occasion we want action.

Ms Joan Walley: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) on choosing an important subject for debate. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, and I remember going to see the society about seven years ago to urge it to take a stance on lead-free petrol. I was told that it thought that the scientific evidence was such that it was not necessary to do anything about increasing the use of lead-free petrol. We must think of the sea-change that has occurred since then, and we need to ensure also a sea-change in how we deal with health problems in urban areas.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest said that this is a complex subject. It is no coincidence that, as we speak, a symposium is taking place, organised by the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene, on the sustainability of a healthy environment. We cannot have enough debate about the health implications of traffic and all the many problems that have been debated this morning. We need a debate in the media and at the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. We must heighten public awareness, and have debates among academics and scientists.
We must make sure that research is carried out, not just on pollutants but on the long-term effects of that cocktail of pollutants. We must find out what we shall be leaving for future generations. We need to have a debate with community and environmental health practitioners, and at local council level, community level and—above all—Government level. We do not just need the Government to debate—we need Government action.
We need a common agenda, and we heard a hint of that in the speeches from hon. Members this morning. We must be able to look at what goes on in the Transport, Environment and Health Departments, and also the Treasury. We must discover how to deal with the environmental problems which many of us are increasingly concerned about.
We have heard about smog, but the growing realisation of the problem is similar to that which occurred with regard to water in the last century, when it was realised that the health problems could not just be ignored and that something had to be done about them. We cannot get away from the fact that the air that we breathe in urban and congested areas—unlike the air in Antarctica—is harming us. It is not just mothers fearful for their children who are concerned, and we should not just be worried about the increasing incidence of asthma.
Simple as it may sound, we do not have a choice about the air we breathe, either in London or in other congested parts of the country. The air is polluted, but we might not know that it is polluted. As my hon. Friend the Member

for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, we have neither the right to know nor the access to the information. We cannot escape the ill-effects of our air.
Those of us who are not affected by asthma or other respiratory problems may think that we have escaped the most damaging effects of pollution, a significant amount of which comes from transport. If we are not affected by it, our families are. We have heard about the rising incidence of asthma, and there is also a rising incidence of physical injury from a disproportionate number of serious accidents in towns arising from urban congestion. There are psychological problems caused by the way in which main roads have split communities and made people afraid to walk the streets freely.
The long-term damage is catching up with us, and with our children. That is why the Rio conference and all the reports which have come out since—the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, a similar report on transport and others—have been crucial. The Rio conference defined sustainable development as the ability to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. We must concentrate on that definition.
In the short time that the Minister has to reply to the debate, I hope that he will tell us what the Department is doing in respect of agenda 21, and what progress is being made towards the notion of a common agenda. Will he comment on the fact that health and environmental issues are still the concerns of separate agencies?
The Opposition and the Government differ on the Government's document on air quality, "Meeting the Challenge". We have heard congratulations from Conservative Members on the progress that the Government are making, but we do not feel that the document goes far enough. It certainly sets out policies for air quality management, but it still does not have transport policies integrated into environmental, health and Treasury strategies. That is a challenge that we all face.
Let us look briefly at the Government's record on transport. It is accepted that the Government's transport policy must go hand in hand with the roads programme. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) described the way in which development corporations are building roads, and how the extra traffic generated by those roads overflows on to local roads. It then becomes impossible to curb the growth in traffic. We must deal in the long term with the growth in traffic, as forecasts suggest that it is set to double by 2020. We must look at the effect of that on local roads.
We have heard a lot this morning about catalytic convertors, and they give us breathing space by helping in the short term. But if the current rate of traffic growth continues, we will not get the advantage from catalytic convertors in terms of air quality because they will simply be unable to keep pace.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) spoke about the enforcement of vehicle emission regulations and about cleaner cars. That may help in the short term, and we have heard about similar controls on buses and HGVs. New technology in that area has been developed by Johnson Matthey. We support that new technology, but it must be allowed to develop. Each of the improvements to air quality mentioned will not keep pace with the increase in traffic. Voluntary action and guidance—which the Government promised in a


statement released last month—is simply not enough. We need researchers, planners and transport operators to devise ways of reducing the need to travel.
It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us—we know of his Department's close collaboration with the Department of the Environment—what specific advice he is giving in respect of the planning policy guidance note 13, which will be crucial in respect of air quality management. We must find alternatives to the many short journeys that are made in urban areas.
Children and the elderly in our urban streets fall into high-risk categories, whether from respiratory illness or from injury from accidents. Statistics might show that our motorways are relatively safe, but we need drastic speed restrictions in urban areas, traffic calming and a transport supplementary grant which would give more than voluntary guidance.
There are many concerns—there is not enough time for me to go into them now—about the impact of traffic on urban areas. I shall just summarise them. We must look at the way in which children go to school. In 1970, about 80 per cent. of seven and eight-year-olds travelled to school on their own. By 1990, that figure had fallen to 9 per cent. What can we do to make our streets safer, so that children can walk to school without feeling threatened by pollution, accidents or other dangers?
Then there is the issue of cycling. I am sure that the Minister will tell us what is being done in London to improve facilities for cycling. We need traffic calming and traffic restraint measures. We cannot have just the occasional speed hump. Traffic calming must be similar to that which exists on the continent, where in some areas 90 per cent. of urban streets are properly calmed. We must examine the matter in the long term and draw up a programme to concentrate on these issues.
We certainly need tighter enforcement of emission regulations. I remind the hon. Member for Wyre Forest that, whatever the Minister might say in his reply today, there is concern about the 20 per cent. cuts in the enforcement budget. The hon. Gentleman talked about pollutants. He did not say that the Government had been remiss in failing to ensure that adequate research was carried out. Average exhaust emissions contain up to 400 different chemicals. We do not know the effects of the cocktail or what effect those pollutants will have in the long term.
We have heard concern expressed about the high levels of air pollution in London. They were graphically described by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West. It is thanks to the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities that air pollution has been highlighted so effectively. The Government say that they are serious in their intentions to tackle air quality. Does that mean categorically that when the Lords consider the Environment Bill tomorrow the Government will support the amendments to require the development of an air quality strategy to set United Kingdom standards? Will the Government welcome that legislative opportunity, for which they say that they have been waiting, to do what they said that they would do in their recent environment and transport White Paper "Meeting the Challenge"?
Unless the Government enact legislation to set clear national and local targets to improve air quality and recognise the need to provide resources to meet those targets in local authorities' standard spending

assessments, how else can the work be done? Local authorities must be given a statutory duty to manage air quality.
There are many other detailed issues which I do not have time to go into. They included mass transit vehicles, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East referred. All those issues must be dealt with urgently. Time is running out not only in today's debate but in tackling the health implications of environmental policy. I urge the Minister to give due regard to the important points that have been made during the debate.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs). He not only initiated an important debate but did so extraordinarily well and made some telling points. He had an advantage over several Opposition Members who spoke in that he knew what the subject of the debate was, having devised it and spoken about it. I hope that I will not break the habit of a lifetime by attempting to answer the debate and ignoring some of the more peripheral points made by Opposition Members.
My hon. Friend referred to the proliferation of bodies involved in air quality. I understand his anxiety, which was shared by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). It is inevitable that such an issue is of interest to a great many Government Departments, local authorities, intergovernmental bodies and others. I see a virtue in that. I see no virtue in duplication or unnecessary fragmentation, but I see great virtue in many Government Departments feeling a sense of ownership of the issue of health and air quality and the elimination of unnecessary transport and offensive practices in industry or transport. That is one advantage of such an issue, which, as my hon. Friend suggested, spans many departmental interests.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) for the consistent high quality of his speech. I have had the pleasure of listening to my hon. Friend on several occasions in the House. He does a superb job on behalf of his constituents in Bromley, not least on this occasion. He touched on all the relevant issues, to which I hope to be able to respond in the time available to me.
I cannot reply to my hon. Friends' points before I mention the speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen seated comfortably and smilingly together on the Back Bench opposite. They are a veritable Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Their humour will ever mask an absence of content. Their sceptical approach to argument is such as to amuse, if not greatly to inform. The expertise of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) needs no endorsement from me. He knows that I have a bus working group examining the improvement of quality bus services, particularly in urban areas. He makes a valuable point. I want to see that work proceed.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East gave the House a misleading impression about the status of Midland Metro. He knows, as I do, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the other day that he was prepared to advance to the west midlands between £95 million and £105 million of taxpayers' money. That means that this year the west midlands, far from being starved or any of the other words that the hon. Gentleman used, will be the recipient of more taxpayers' money in its local settlement than any other region. The local health


authority will have to find some money. The entire assembled local authorities of the west midlands will have to find £30 million over four years. If they cannot do that, I wonder how seriously they want the project. That is the challenge that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State advanced to them. I hope that they will take it on board.

Mr. Snape: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Norris: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) left me very few minutes to deal with the debate. I am astonished that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, who purports to speak from the Front Bench on transport issues, condemned the work of the Black Country development corporation. They dismissed with a sweep of their hand its work in improving the infrastructure of the black country. To them it is all about simply creating pollution and congestion. That is an extraordinary proposition. I wonder whether they have discussed the matter with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) or—which is perhaps more relevant—with all their hon. Friends who beat a regular path to my door and that of my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads, asking for road schemes in their constituencies.
There is a great law in politics. We are all against road building in general and in favour of the road scheme in our constituency. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East should talk to his hon. Friends who represent St. Helens, Barnsley, Rotherham and Sheffield, all of whom have talked to me in recent days on precisely that theme. It is extraordinary that a party that represents itself as responsible and even—however fantastic it may sound—as an alternative Government, has such a primitive attitude towards industry and industrial development as that displayed by those two Opposition Members today.
I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. I have no interest in his personal body habits. I will say no more on that subject. I envy him his Antarctic trip. I am sorry that I was not able to join him. He must not follow the advice of Nye Bevan, who said that he would never allow the facts to get in the way of a good argument. The hon. Gentleman spoke about air quality in London. Let me make it clear that London has available twice daily on Ceefax, and has had since October 1990, and on a free telephone number—0800 556677—a forecast for the next 24 hours on oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide, ozone and benzene.
We are proud of our air quality bulletin system. We are the only country in Europe to provide information on the latter two pollutants on an hourly basis. They are both carcinogenic volatile organic compounds. So let us hear none of the nonsense that suggests that we have a deficit in our willingness to publish information. It is precisely because we are so open in our publication of information that we have stimulated such a helpful and constructive debate, in which my hon. Friends distinguished themselves.
I shall deal now with the standard setting for the pollutants that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest mentioned. In the air quality statement on 19 January, the Secretary of State for the Environment announced the national strategic plan to be established for

the maintenance and improvement of air quality. Within that, there will be improvement targets for the nine main atmospheric pollutants, selected on the criteria of prevalence and harm. For each, the Government will identify a base standard to which it will be the aim of policy progressively to move and on the basis of which policy targets will be set. There will also be an alarm threshold which, if reached, will stimulate immediate remedial action. It will be the Government's objective that the targets that they are minded to adopt are achieved everywhere in the United Kingdom by 2005. The Government's programme for setting standards and targets will be speeded up, with the advisory work of the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards—EPAQS—targeted for completion by summer 1996.
I shall now deal with the specific questions about health and urban road congestion. The forms of air pollution that are of most concern here are short-term episodes in which there is a high concentration of pollutants and prolonged exposure to raised levels of pollutants. Clearly, traffic is immensely important in all this, as I think we understand. The Department of Health has two expert committees on the subject: the Advisory Group on the Medical Aspects of Air Pollution Episodes and the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants—COMEAP—which was set up in 1992 to advise the Government on the effects on health of air pollutants in both outdoor and indoor air. There are two sub-groups of COMEAP, one dealing with asthma and air pollution, and the other dealing with particles.
In terms of illness groups, I shall deal first with cancer. Some individual air pollutants are either known or probable human carcinogens, as many speakers have pointed out. Diesel exhaust and petrol exhaust are probable human carcinogens. It is, however, important to remember that tobacco smoking is still the main cause of lung cancer as far as we can determine.
On average, levels of benzene may be slightly higher in unleaded petrol than in leaded. However, an EC directive limits benzene content in both to less than 5 per cent. The risks from either are, in medical terms, very small. Most benzene is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said, a product of combustion rather than of the fuel itself. Virtually all the benzene in petrol is burnt in the engine. Only trace quantities occur in exhaust gases; catalytic converters remove three quarters of these trace quantities.
The views of the Department of Health committee on carcinogenicity and of COMEAP were taken into account in the recommendation of the joint Department of the Environment and Department of Health Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards for an air quality standard for benzene. As benzene is a genotoxic carcinogen, the expert panel accepted that no absolutely safe level of exposure could be defined, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said. However, at the concentrations occurring in ambient air, there is only an exceedingly small risk to health in the United Kingdom.
EPAQS recommended the establishment of a five parts per billion standard as a running annual mean with a reduction in due course to a target of one part per billion. The results of current monitoring show that mean benzene concentrations in outdoor air are generally at or below the 5 ppb level. Annual mean benzene concentrations at the kerbsides of busy roads can be higher, but kerbside levels provide only a small contribution to total annual exposure.


The projected decrease in benzene emissions from motor traffic by 2000 will, however, reduce substantially urban background concentrations of benzene. The overall effect of policies now in place or agreed means that by 2000, the possibility of occasions when the 5 ppb standard is exceeded should be virtually eliminated. We will monitor progress and look at what further measures may be necessary.
There is some evidence that exposure to very high concentrations of smoke from diesel engines may contribute to lung cancer in certain occupational groups, but it is unlikely that ordinary street exposure would have an effect as the concentrations are far lower. Diesel emissions account for many of the particles present in urban air. The Quality of Urban Air Review Group advised in late 1993 that diesel emissions are more damaging to health than petrol emissions, although in terms of fuel economy and emissions of other pollutants, such as carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, diesels perform rather better than petrol engines.
The debate over petrol versus diesel as an environmentally friendly fuel is immensely complex. We still do not have absolutely conclusive evidence on this, so we neither recommend nor discourage the purchase and use of diesel cars. In the Budget, the rate of diesel fuel duty was brought into line with that of unleaded petrol. Nevertheless, the problem has been referred to the COMEAP sub-group looking at the effects of particles on health.
Particulates are particles suspended in the air, which may be inhaled as we breathe. It is the fine particles, defined as the PM10 particles—that is, particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 microns—that are important here. They are formed during the combustion process and they may be released in exhaust emissions. In urban areas, motor vehicles are the main source of particulates, with diesel vehicles being responsible for most of the particles measured as black smoke. The Department of Health has asked for definitive advice from COMEAP on the effects of particulates on health and we await its views.
Like the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, I saw the other day the demonstration of the continuously regenerating trap—CRT—device which was launched by Johnson Matthey. It is, indeed, an exciting development which offers the prospect of a fitment for about £3,000 to £4,000 of a device that has a spectacular effect in visible terms and, I am advised, in overall terms. Clearly, it opens up to us the prospect of even tighter standards for public service vehicles.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and I have a keen interest in London. I accept the point that it is often perceived to be buses and taxis that are the major cause of concern. It is also understood by those who are concerned about these matters that buses produce about 300 passenger miles per gallon whereas motor cars produce about 20 passenger miles per gallon. On the basis of pollution per passenger mile, buses are still an effective form of public transport and are environmentally very friendly. It is clear, however, that more can be done if the technical means are available. The CRT device offers that prospect. We also have in London the metered smoke test for taxis which, I hope, will bring about an improvement. We need to look at that matter, which gives rise to a great deal of public concern.
I shall now deal with the respiratory disease of asthma. It is certainly possible that increasing traffic emissions are a contributory factor in asthma, but there is little firm evidence to back up the idea that emissions are the cause of asthma. Diet, smoking in pregnancy, passive smoking, house dust mites and other indoor air pollutants are all known to have effects. I ask for some caution before people jump to too many conclusions on this issue.
The number of people with asthma does not appear to be any greater in urban areas than in rural parts. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West mentioned the problem of asthma. I too, not many miles away from him, see a similar problem in my constituency surgery. However, I believe that one would find that even hon. Members who represent very rural areas come across this phenomenon. Interestingly enough, asthma is also increasing in countries such as New Zealand, Sweden and even Fiji which have not had a significant rise in levels of pollution. I am told that there are definable increases in asthma where there are clearly not significant rises in levels of pollution. It may simply be that there is no single cause of asthma, but a combination of genetic and environmental causes, of which vehicle emissions are one.
In deciding whether asthmatics are especially sensitive to air pollution, it is important to distinguish between factors that may induce asthma in previously healthy people and those that may trigger an attack in a susceptible individual. Medical and scientific research in that subject is regularly reviewed and new evidence is referred to the expert committees of the Department of Health and, in particular, to the asthma and air pollution sub-group of COMEAP.
Sadly, there is not time to go into the other points made in the debate. It was, indeed, a good debate on a serious issue. I am happy either to talk to or to write to hon. Members on both sides who wish to pursue some of these complex issues with me at length.
An agreed principle of traffic management in our cities must be to seek a modal shift and reduce the most polluting form of individual transport, which is deemed to be the private car. I caution that, although the Royal Commission was long on the problem, the solutions that it proposed have found remarkably few committed adherents on either side of the House or from any party. If society is serious about the matter, it has some tough decisions to make, which will affect how individuals regulate their personal lives. Traffic calming, charging people to go into cities or banning private non-residential parking are all serious measures.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It is now time for the debate on the Foyle Fisheries Commission.

Foyle Fisheries Commission

1 pm

Mr. William Ross: The House will be well aware that I am not an enthusiast of this new method of conducting the business of the House, as I have long believed that the procedures that have evolved over centuries probably have more to commend them than was generally recognised. As matters develop, we shall see that we were not wise to make this change. Nevertheless, it provides an extra opportunity for Back Benchers to raise matters of concern, and this matter has concerned me for a long time.
The House will be aware that over the past year or two, and with increasing frequency of late, we have heard much praise for the Foyle Fisheries Commission in relation to its role as a cross-border body with executive powers. The impression promoted is that the organisation is universally applauded as an example of willing co-operation created in an atmosphere of good will to improve the important salmon and sea trout fishery of the River Foyle catchment area and that it has been a wonderful success.
I regret that I sought only a half-hour debate on this matter. I further regret that I must begin it by giving a thumb-nail sketch of the history of the salmon fishery of the Foyle, as that will take up some of the time available.
There is clear evidence that the salmon fisheries of the Foyle and the Bann have always been viewed as valuable fisheries. Statements are on record to show that, even many centuries ago, salmon were traded far beyond the shores of Ireland.
The House will be aware that what is now County Londonderry was created by King James I of England and VI of Scotland when he was engaged in the plantation of Ulster in the 17th century. What is not so well known is that the new county of Londonderry then formed, with the old county of Coleraine as its geographical base, was defined by listing the "ballyboes", now called "townlands", and allocating them to the various London livery companies, which had to plant English and Scottish settlers and build towns in their portions. I shall not detain the House with details, save one, which is that the salmon fisheries of the Bann and the Foyle were one of the items specifically included.
Of even greater significance is the fact that, to protect the salmon fishery rights granted in the charter that set up the county, the county boundaries included the waters of Lough Foyle up to the high water mark on the Donegal side up to the town of Liffer, now called Lifford. That is a way of saying "the tidal limit" of the lough and river estuary. The fact that the waters of Lough Foyle—a sea lough—are specifically included within the county of Londonderry is unique within the British Isles.
All Irish counties are an English creation. I could go back further and say that they are a Norman creation. Throughout Ireland, and so long as the whole island was under the Crown, no one raised any objection to the county boundary including the waters of Lough Foyle. The question of that boundary assumed importance only when the 26 counties forming the Republic of Ireland broke away from the United Kingdom in 1920. The Irish Republic has consistently laid claim to Lough Foyle, or to at least part of it. The United Kingdom, having a real

need to control those waters to gain access to Londonderry port, has so far refused to surrender to that demand.
The demands of the Republic were brought sharply to the attention of the United Kingdom when the IRA sank two coal boats at the mouth of the lough in the 1980s. I could say more about that but I shall desist. The Minister might like to investigate that matter and tell us who paid the compensation for those boats.
After the Republic came into being, some persons in the Republic objected to the Hon. The Irish Society owning the salmon fishery and many ugly scenes ensued as those people began wholesale poaching of the salmon fishery. The owner then decided to seek the protection of its interests in the courts on both sides of the border, but it soon became clear that the courts in the Republic were prepared to adopt a critical attitude towards the society's royal charters, on which its claim was founded. The former secretary of the Foyle Fisheries Commission wrote that
The Society discovered that the Irish Free State courts refused to convict in Foyle Fisheries cases brought before them on the grounds that as questions of title were involved, the cases did not come within their jurisdiction. One District Justice in County Donegal was even reported as declaring that the Society had no fishing rights in that area.
Given the costs involved in proceeding with a title action, the society contented itself with such protection as could be provided by bailiffs and water keepers. That kept illegal netting within reasonable bounds until the outbreak of war in 1939. The price of salmon immediately rocketed. It was said at the time that one throw of a net could bring in a catch worth £100, which was a considerable sum in 1939–40. By 1947, the river had hundreds of illegal nets, to the point where 60 per cent. of the fishery was under the control of lawbreakers and poachers.
The poachers, however, claimed that they were legally entitled to fish under licences issued by the Molville Board of Conservators in the Irish Republic. I remind the House that, before the island was divided into two states, one board of conservators covered the entire Foyle fisheries area. In 1948, the Dublin High Court declared that the "branch stream", which is the portion of river between an island and the Donegal side of the River Foyle, upstream of Londonderry, was a public fishery. The result of that decision was that the salmon had no protection whatever from the Donegal-based netsmen.
In the light of that, the Stormont Ministry of Agriculture—not Dublin—decided to make a serious effort to save that valuable resource and approached Dublin to see whether a solution could be found. The solution arrived at was the Foyle Fisheries Commission, set up in Bills passed through the legislatures in Belfast and Dublin early in 1952. By that time, more than 600 nets, mainly illegal, were operating in the estuary and all the illegal nets appeared to be operated by persons resident in Donegal.
Interestingly, some of the provisions necessary for the Northern Ireland Foyle fisheries legislation were beyond the competence of the Northern Ireland Parliament and an enabling Bill had to be passed through this House—the Northern Ireland (Foyle Fisheries) Bill—the Second Reading of which was held on 3 December 1951.
Given those facts, it is clear that the Foyle Fisheries Commission was not the consequence of good will by the Government of the Irish Republic but rather the consequence of that Government's refusal to recognise the validity of the royal charters that created county Londonderry. The outcome of that was the lawlessness that erupted on that border river estuary and lough. Indeed, even to this day the Republic steadfastly refuses to accept the boundary of Londonderry, despite accepting the boundary of every other county in Ireland and all the borders that form the counties of Northern Ireland. I wonder what the outcome of this miserable episode would have been if the United Kingdom Government had insisted on the County Londonderry-Donegal boundary, as defined in the charter, instead of not even mentioning it. It was not mentioned in any of the debates that took place in either the Northern Ireland Parliament or in the House at the time. Perhaps the Minister might spend a profitable hour reading those debates. In fact, it would not even take an hour, because those debates were very short and, unfortunately, no one took much interest in them.
The commission consists of four civil servants and a secretary—two of the civil servants are from each jurisdiction. The advisory body is, frankly, dominated by commercial netting interests. The balance of advantage of the commercial exploitation of salmon is significantly in favour of the Republic. The House should remember that the salmon fishery is reputed to be the richest in Europe. The balance in favour of the Republic is evident from the statistics, which show that, in 1994, 138 net licences were issued to people resident in County Donegal and only 32 to people living in Northern Ireland. For statistical purposes, the catch of all the nets is split equally between the Republic and Northern Ireland—that is nonsense, because that gives a false impression as to who reaps the benefit.
On the other hand, most of the rod fishery is in Northern Ireland, as the facts demonstrate. In the Republic, salmon rivers total 49 miles in length, draining 195 square miles. That represents the River Finn system, made up of the Rivers Finn and the Reelan. That system is of interest for a further reason because it is the only one that carries a run of spring salmon in the whole Foyle system. That is quite remarkable and no one can explain it.
The spring fish that run the Finn are not, of course, subject to netting pressure because they are already in the river before the nets start to operate. That means that in Northern Ireland, where there are 440 miles of river, draining 1,118 square miles, it is the stock that runs into those rivers in June, July and August that provides the bulk of the commercial catch. No one in government circles seems too anxious to discuss that. The figures show that the interests of the Republic and Northern Ireland in the fishery are different. The Republic's main interest is in commercial netting and the benefits from that. The interests of Northern Ireland are mainly in local recreational angling, of a high standard, and the possible exploitation of that angling for tourism. The latter will prove rather more difficult than some people imagine because of the question of angling rights on the various rivers and streams, many of which are owned by the Irish Society to this day and leased.
When the reports of the commission are examined, it is clear that the illegal fishing, which was the root cause of the creation of the commission, did not disappear at once. I do not speak of the normal up-river, small-scale

poaching, which plagues all salmon rivers to some extent, but of the large-scale netting operations in the estuary and, to some extent in the lough. I have only glanced through some of the commission's reports, but they reveal that, in 1976, many poachers were operating in the Carrigans area in Donegal, to the extent that there was a complete breakdown in law and order.
In 1980, the Carrigans-Lifford area was the source of most of the problems; in 1985, two members of the commission's staff needed hospital treatment after being attacked by masked men in the Lifford area. In 1986, the majority of the problems once again arose in the Strabane-Lifford area. By 1990, the poachers were using CB radio. In 1991, a substantial number of unlawful fishing incidents were recorded. I hope that the House takes note that the problems were Donegal based and all occurred in the same area that gave rise to the problem in the first place—around the branch fishery area on the Donegal side.
I have also looked at the reported legal net catches from 1963 to 1992 and averaged them over five-year periods. The averages show that, in 1963–67, an average of 120,585 fish were caught; in 1968–72, an average of 99,250 fish were caught; in 1973–77, an average of 54,587 fish were caught; in 1978–82, an average of 45,815 fish were caught; in 1983–87, an average of 43,628 fish were caught and in 1987–92, the last year for which I have a report, 46,072 fish were caught. In other words, in the past 20 years, the legal catch has been consistently much less than half of what it was in the period immediately before that. The illegal catch is, of course, unknown and therefore the effect of the total catch on stocks is impossible to determine. I will not explore the problems that that raises for the organisation of the fishery and for deciding how much we can take out of it.
I did not seek the debate to condemn totally the commission's efforts; rather, I have tried to make clear the simple fact that it was created because the Irish Republic behaved abominably from 1920 to 1952. The commission was a mend-and-make-do exercise, which has had a measure of success in constraining poachers. Furthermore, the commission is composed of four civil servants and a secretary—it is not in any sense democratic. Anglers have always complained that their opinions have carried little weight in the decisions taken by the commission. The advisory body has simply been held in derision by the vast majority of anglers in Northern Ireland. That is not surprising, as Mr. Hadoke, a former secretary of the commission, describes it as follows in his brief history of the salmon fisheries of the Foyle:
The Council is elected every three years in accordance with the current regulations and comprises representatives of riparian owners, anglers and netsmen. The Council being purely an advisory body does not directly influence the activities of the Commission but it serves the purpose of permitting the users of the fisheries to give their opinions on matters connected with the Fishery.
In other contexts we have described that as an opportunity for the locals to let off steam.
Those who have praised that cross-border executive body as an excellent example of what can be accomplished seem to have scant understanding of its origins and how it is structured and controlled. Far from being a model for a cross-border institution, it is a first-rate example of what we should not create. It is a warning to all those who are unwise enough to believe that the Irish Republic acted out of concern for the welfare of the fishery rather than through an attempt to gain a


measure of control over what was and still is a United Kingdom asset. It was in its genesis, and in its method of control, a tiny forerunner of what is currently being attempted over a far wider area.
I could say much about the way in which the commission has tried to fulfil its duties in regard to salmon and sea trout. The whole question of other freshwater coarse fish, the eels and the shellfish in the lough could be discussed. The recent changes to the commission could also be considered, but they are not the issues to which I wanted to draw the House's attention today.
On this occasion, I simply wanted to explode the nonsense of using the commission as a model for cross-border executive bodies, for it is the worst possible example.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): I congratulate the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) on his success in the ballot and on his choice of subject. I doubt whether he has another peer in the House for knowledge of fisheries, in particular salmon fisheries in the Province of Northern Ireland.
The Foyle Fisheries Commission has been in existence since 1952. It was established by corresponding Acts passed by the Northern Ireland Parliament and the Republic of Ireland. Under the terms of the legislation, the commission has responsibility for the management of the fishing rights in Lough Foyle and the tidal waters of the Rivers Foyle and Faughan. It also has responsibility for conservation, protection and improvement of salmon and inland fisheries throughout the rivers of the Foyle catchment and the adjacent sea area from Malin head in County Donegal to Downhill in County Londonderry.
I would contend that, since its inception, the Foyle Fisheries Commission has had a history of considerable achievement. It has provided a commonsense, lasting solution to the protection and management of salmon stocks in a major cross-border catchment. It has operated effectively and has gained acceptance throughout its area of responsibility.
The commission has achieved good runs of salmon into the rivers in recent years and unprecedented levels in the past two seasons. As the hon. Member for Londonderry, East said, it has achieved considerable success against poachers. I refer especially to statistics from 1993, when 640 nets were seized and forfeited, 55 boats were seized and forfeited and 207 successful prosecutions were brought. Recently, a new high-speed patrol vessel was commissioned. It is under construction, and it is hoped that that will be available for the 1995 season.
My noble Friend Baroness Denton of Wakefield wrote to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East on 27 January 1995 about the powers of the Foyle Fisheries Commission and the benefits that have accrued to Northern Ireland as a result of its operations. For the information of the House, I shall outline those powers and refer to some of the benefits.
The commission has powers to make subordinate legislation to regulate management, conservation, protection and improvement of the fisheries of the Foyle area. Subordinate legislation made by the commission

requires the approval of, first, the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland and, secondly, the Minister for the Marine in the Republic of Ireland. In consequence, it cannot introduce measures that are unacceptable to the responsible Minister in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.
The commission also has power to enforce the provisions of the Foyle Fisheries Acts and the subordinate legislation made under them. In exercise of those powers, the commission may take legal proceedings against a person through the courts of the jurisdiction in which he resides, irrespective of where in the Foyle area an offence is committed.
As for the benefits accruing to Northern Ireland, the commission was established against a background whereby it was impossible to secure proper protection and management of the salmon stocks in the Foyle system, due to jurisdictional considerations.
Those problems were not confined to Lough Foyle or the open sea, where there was no agreement on the international boundary line. They extended to enforcement problems associated with detecting and making people amenable to the law for fishery offences in those significant areas of river that form part of the international boundary.

Mr. William Ross: That is the very matter that has always been in contention: that, under the charters creating the county of Londonderry, it was up to the high-water mark on the Donegal side to the town of Lifford. Has the Minister forgotten that? When the coal boats were sunk at the mouth of the Foyle, the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, permitted the Donegal authorities to salvage them.

Mr. Moss: I confess to being ignorant of the fact that those boats were sunk at the mouth of the Foyle, but no doubt I shall be apprised of that situation fairly soon, if not in the next half hour or so.
I was referring not simply to where the boundary goes in the lough, but to the River Foyle on the way between Londonderry and Strabane, where the international boundary goes down the centre of the river. It was impossible to police fishing, because one could nip to the other side of the river, stick one's rod in and avoid being accused of taking the wrong fish.

Mr. Ross: I have taken the precaution of reading the charter, which is the key and which is at issue in international law between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. It is the charter that sets up the county of Londonderry.

Mr. Moss: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but there has been dispute, as he acknowledged, about the international boundary since the 1920s. He has also argued that it was for the people who established the border at that time to reach a proper accommodation. I do not know whether they forgot to include the boundary out to sea in the lough; all I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that history tells us that there has been dispute about that lough for the past 70-odd years, and at least the Foyle Fisheries Commission has brought about some sense and some organisation to salmon stocks in that lough and in the rivers that flow into it.

Mr. David Trimble: I thank the Minister for giving way, but he may not be familiar


with all the constitutional background. It was the legislation of the House which, in 1920, defined Northern Ireland as being the "parliamentary counties of Londonderry", and the charter defines those parliamentary boundaries. Therefore, as a Member of the House and a Minister responsible for that region, it is his job to vindicate it—not the job of some people in other times. It is his job today to vindicate the boundary as extending to cover, within Londonderry, the whole of the river and the whole of the estuary.
Will he take account of the main burden of my hon. Friend's speech—that the operation of the charter has favoured netsmen in Donegal rather than the people for whom he should have a responsibility?

Mr. Moss: I shall discuss the hon. Gentleman's second argument in a moment. In answer to his first argument, it seems to me that those people who, in the 1920s, determined the international boundary between the two states either forgot or ignored the boundary out to sea in the lough. I do not know what happened in 1920, but there has been dispute about that boundary and that border ever since. The Foyle Fisheries Commission has brought some semblance of order to an extremely difficult position.
The benefits accruing to Northern Ireland extend to not only enforcement problems but measurement of salmon stocks in the estuary and the river system. Due to the geography of the Foyle system—as the hon. Member for Londonderry, East said—Northern Ireland derives a disproportionate share of the benefits arising from angling exploitation of salmon stocks, as most of the rivers in the Foyle system lie in the Province. Fish-counting stations on the River Mourne and the River Faughan, located upstream of all commercial nets, recorded 27,000 salmon migrating up those rivers in 1994. Allowance is made for fish entering the River Roe, in which I know that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East has a specific interest. In the past, he has invited me to participate in that interest. Whether he will extend the invitation after today I do not know, but he has an interest in the River Roe.
If one adds all those rivers together, one obtains a measure of an angling resource made available to the Province, which has been a result of the operations of the Foyle Fisheries Commission.
I answer to the second argument of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), it is true that 138 of 170 commercial fishing licences issued by the commission in 1994 were issued to fishermen resident in County Donegal. I have inquired into that, because it would appear that there is a striking imbalance in the number of licences issued, but although there is an upper limit on licences—obviously, some control must be exercised—people from the Province of Northern Ireland do not apply for licences at anything like the same rate. There must be a difference of culture and tradition.
Although the commercial catch in 1994 was 38,854 salmon, the number of salmon entering the rivers in the system would have at least equalled, and probably exceeded, that number when allowance is made for the rivers on which counting facilities are not available.
My noble Friend Baroness Denton recently announced the restructuring of the Foyle Fisheries Commission and a significant extension of its functions.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East mentioned the KPMG report and local representation on the commission. He alluded to the advisory council, which has been in existence for some time and which was established by legislation. That is being broadened and strengthened as a result of the report, and an executive committee is to be established in the advisory council to enable it to play a much more meaningful role in the direction of the commission. The executive committee will regularly meet commissioners to discuss the main strategy issues relating to the conservation and development of fisheries in the Foyle area. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see the establishment of that executive committee as a strong move in the direction of local representation.
In her announcement, my noble Friend talked about the committee's remit, which is currently limited to salmon and freshwater fishery matters. Subject to the introduction of the necessary legislative amendments, it will in future have responsibility for a much wider range of functions, particularly in Lough Foyle. They will include the licensing and regulation of shellfish exploitation and marine agriculture, and the regulation of sea fisheries in the lough.
Lough Foyle has considerable potential for shellfish production, and the development of that potential has been hampered by the jurisdictional uncertainties over the lough. As with salmon, placing responsibility for shellfish and marine—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Time is up.

Robin Hood Railway Line

Mr. John Heppell: I shall start by giving a brief explanation of the Robin Hood line. I recognise that the Minister will know the details, but other hon. Members may not.
The Robin Hood railway line is being constructed in three stages. It was instigated by Nottinghamshire county council with the assistance of the district councils along the route of the line. The plan is to provide a regular rail service from Nottingham city, through Ashfield and Mansfield and, finally, to link in with the existing railway in Worksop. It will serve a corridor that takes in about 750,000 people in an area of the country which everyone would agree has been one of the worst hit by colliery closures.
The line serves an area of high unemployment and it will assist in the region's economic regeneration. It will relieve congestion, both along its corridor and in the city of Nottingham. It will reduce accidents on the roads and move people from road to rail—from car to public transport—in a positive way. It will do so not by road pricing or the regulation of cars, but because people will recognise that it is the best form of transport for that route. In social, economic, health and environmental terms, it is a winner.
Stage 1 of the line, which was opened in 1993, is already a success. Before that, market research had suggested that patronage of the line would increase steadily—and double—over a five-year period. As often happens, the market researchers were proved wrong. In the first year of the line's opening, its patronage was double the expected figure. The five-year figure was achieved within one year, and the patronage has been maintained despite problems such as the signalmen's dispute, which interfered with the operation of the line.
Just this week, the patronage figures reported to the executive group dealing with the line show that there is now a weekly average of 10,000 trips. One does not need to be an expert on transport, an accountant or a statistician to recognise just what impact that will have on the county of Nottinghamshire and the city of Nottingham. Those who use the service are travelling safely and arriving at their destination quicker. Those who do not use the service are finding less traffic on their routes and less difficulty with parking. Those in the city of Nottingham are experiencing the benefits of fewer cars and less pollution.
Stage 2 of the line was commenced under an agreement between Nottinghamshire county council and Regional Railways Central in March 1994. In April 1994 the British Railways Board was split into two companies by the Government, and the problems began. I have instigated today's debate to highlight the problems for the future developments of the Robin Hood railway that have been caused by extra costs, both capital and revenue, which are all outside the county council's control. A large proportion of the problems has arisen because of rail privatisation.
To stress the urgency of the problem I shall quote from a report of this Monday, 6 February, of the Robin Hood line executive group sub-committee. Paragraph 9 states:
Railtrack have informally indicated that a guarantee of additional funding to meet the capital cost shortfall of up to £2.6 million will be required from the county by April/May. Without such a

guarantee, they say they would have to halt works because of the financial implications of their contractual commitments with the BR infrastructure units engaged on Stage 2 track and signalling.
If the money cannot be guaranteed, the work on the line will stop.
I want to thank the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), who is now Minister of State for Defence Procurement and the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), the Minister for Transport in London, who have taken a personal interest in the line. I hope that by the end of today's debate, when I have heard his reply, I shall be able to thank the Minister for Transport in London even more.
Today's debate is not about privatisation—we had that last night. I do not agree with privatisation and my opposition to it is recognised, as is the Labour party's opposition to it. I do not want to criticise Government officials—I have nothing but praise for the officials at the Department of Transport, who have had many helpful and positive meetings with the county council, Railtrack and the regional director of the new regional integrated offices, and who still express support for the scheme in principle. They recognise that the position has changed dramatically in a way that could not have been foreseen and are exploring possible mechanisms for applying for extra funding for stage 2.
However, I have some worries about some of the correspondence. First, the correspondence seems to suggest that there is no acceptance that some of the extra costs have been caused by privatisation. The suggestions have come not from officials, but from leading politicians. Secondly, even if there is a recognition of the reasons for the extra costs, the Government may not respond positively because Nottinghamshire is not a passenger transport authority and does not have a passenger transport executive. Thirdly, there are difficulties with funding for stage 3 and other transport initiatives identified in the Greater Nottingham rail development strategy, such as the Greater Nottingham light rapid transit system—a unique partnership between Nottinghamshire county council, Nottingham city council and the private sector.
Mr. Howard Jackson thought that it might be worth while lobbying the Chancellor of the Exchequer as he was his local Member of Parliament. I need quote no more than the first two sentences of the letter that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote in reply to Mr. Jackson. It states:
Dear Mr. Jackson,
Thank you very much for your recent letter about the mounting costs of the Robin Hood Line. I do not accept that these costs are in any way related to the privatisation policy.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer goes on to ask questions about how much the scheme is costing council tax payers and whether the council is wasting money on silly schemes—it is that sort of letter.
It does not surprise me that the Chancellor should wish to dismiss the idea of the extra costs of privatisation. When we discussed the Railways Bill in Committee, the Government, the Chancellor and some of the Ministers promised that privatisation would result in savings, but that does not seem to be so. Capital costs are increasing by £2.6 million and everyone accepts that the budget has exceeded the sum anticipated. British Rail and Railtrack have some questions to answer on the total sum. The figures produced by Eurolog, a leading consultant on the


subject which has conducted a risk analysis of the project for the project manager employed by Railtrack's major projects division—not by the county council—leave one in no doubt. They showed the biggest extra cost. I have the report entitled "Robin Hood Line, Stage 2, Project Manager's Report to Nottinghamshire County Council " in front of me. It points out that more than £1 million—one third of the total capital costs—of the extra cost results from the privatisation and reorganisation of British Rail.
That increase is not peculiar to the Robin Hood line project. The report includes a general analysis of cost increases in BR projects. The Robin Hood line, with a 15 per cent. increase in cost, is doing quite well. Eurolog's general analysis suggests that the cost of most projects has increased by 25 per cent. Appendix B of the report spells out those costs: the cost of maintaining organisation headquarters increased by 5 per cent.; finance, warranty, risk and profit increased by 7 per cent.; and staff fixed overhead costs increased by 10 per cent. Most significant costs were caused by privatisation—by accountancy changes, contractual arrangements and new profit margins.
That is not just Eurolog's view. I have received a letter from Robert Horton, who I believe is still in charge of Railtrack, in which he says:
I must stress that these charges are as a result of Railtrack being separated from British Rail following the implementation of the Railways Act 1993.
I think that spells it out very clearly. He continues:
While this results in some increases in our management charges because of the more complex arrangements, the vast majority of increases arise directly from the increased prices from our suppliers who remain part of British Rail".
I am not interested if the Minister chooses to claim that those costs are not related to privatisation. For the purposes of this debate, I merely wish to identify the costs that have resulted, not from the development of the scheme, but from changes in Government policy. I am quite happy for the Minister to call them something else. He may say, for example, that there is a new accountancy regime and that the money will be recycled. However, he must accept that the costs have not resulted from the project development.
The problem has an added dimension because revenue costs, as well as capital costs, will increase. In a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the director of planning and economic development says that the increase in costs can be attributed to privatisation. He goes on to say:
With regard to operating costs, under the 'old regime' it would have cost the County Council £125,000 per annum including cover to hire a 2 car Class 150 train from Regional Railways Central. This was a commercial charge including depreciation and interest charges. We are now informed by the Train Operating Company that the latest indicative leasing charge received from the Rolling Stock Companies … for a 2. car Class 150 train is £256,000 per annum including cover.
That is an increase of more than 100 per cent. in leasing charges. As the county council was told by the then Minister for Public Transport and the present Minister of State for Defence Procurement, the right hon. Member for Kettering, that it could not purchase the trains but had to lease them, it has no choice but to meet that increase. Railtrack has also informed the council that access charges will increase substantially due to the change in charging principles, profit margins and increases passed on by BR.
I do not care what the Minister calls those increases. However, they are significant increases for the Robin Hood line project which the council cannot be expected to bear alone. That brings me to my point about Government responsibility for the extra charges.
I refer the Under-Secretary of State, who is in the Chamber, to his letter of 23 December to Nottinghamshire county council. The second paragraph on page 2 states:
You also suggest that Nottinghamshire should be treated on the same basis as the Passenger Transport Authorities when it comes to funding of any cost increases brought about by privatisation. There is, however, an important difference. The PTAs and PTEs have statutory responsibilities in relation to the provision of rail services, and it was only reasonable that they should receive compensation for the increased cost of discharging these responsibilities.
In other words, passenger transport authority areas will receive compensation, but Nottinghamshire will receive nothing because it is not a PTA. That response would be fair enough if it were not for the fact that that aspect of privatisation was brought to the attention of the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Kettering, during the passage of the Railways Bill.
A letter sent to me by the head of strategic planning and transport prompted me to raise that issue. He said:
One key issue (agreed by all commentators) is the lack of any shire county recognition in the Bill. This seems deliberate because there is a difference to PTEs/PTAs. Admittedly the PTEs have a statutory role in providing rail support for their areas … but even when the subsidy agreements end and are replaced by the new regime, the Bill still gives PTEs a 'planning' and consultative role … which they think is inadequate. This omission specifically in relation to Nottinghamshire is worrying, particularly since Nottinghamshire is the biggest urban area outside the Metropolitans; indeed the County Council's initiatives on Rail and LRT puts the County in the 'big league'.
I will be brief because I want the Minister to have an opportunity to reply to those points. In response to that letter, the Minister made some very reassuring noises in Committee. I must admit that I was fairly reassured and I thought that the Minister had made some sort of commitment to examine the situation after the Bill became law. However, when I read what the Minister said in an attempt to nail down a commitment, I found that he did not say that at all.
In a letter to the leader of Nottinghamshire county council, the Minister said:
The fact that Shire Counties are not given the same powers as the PTEs in the Railways Bill should in no way be taken as an indication that the Government is not mindful of the valuable role that the Shires play in promoting public transport in their areas. We are keen to preserve local authorities' powers to support local rail services. Indeed, for the first time we are making clear in legislation the status of local authorities and PTEs as 'competent authorities' under EC legislation for the purpose of paying PSO grants.
I found the Minister's answer to the letter very reassuring, however, it now seems to be far from the reality of the situation.
I am worried not just about the Robin Hood line; I am also concerned about future transport initiatives. I can see my county and my city being disadvantaged by the fact that the area is not a PTA and I would be happy if the Minister would make it a PTA. In light of local government reorganisation, I am concerned about how future initiatives like the Robin Hood line will advance. How will stage 3 of the Robin Hood line go forward? How will the Greater Nottingham light rapid transit system develop?
I am concerned about the other services being developed as part of the Greater Nottingham area rail development strategy, such as the Nottingham to Ilkeston line, the Nottingham to Bingham, the Nottingham to Sandiacre and the Nottingham to Gedling services. All of those developing local services will be disadvantaged because the rules work against Nottinghamshire but not against PTAs.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) on having secured this debate on the Robin Hood railway line. He has always been assiduously interested in railway matters. I had the dubious pleasure of spending several months of my life in Committee considering the Railways Bill, and that pleasure was added to by the presence of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Mr. Hill), whom I am happy to see in his place, and for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), who I know is interested in this line.
Let me say on a very sad note that I did not have the opportunity yesterday to extend my personal sympathy to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), who has suffered a grievous personal loss. I know that he would have been here, and I welcome the opportunity to express my personal sympathy. I note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport was able to do so yesterday on his own behalf.
I am interested in and supportive of the general concept of railway improvements such as those to the Robin Hood railway line. One could call it a de-Beeching process, and I have been heartened by the extent to which much of my work is concerned not with closure orders, but with proposals for the opening of lines up and down the country. In London, we have the East London line, which, in effect, will bring back into use a piece of line that exists all but for track and trains; fortunately, the main infrastructure is complete. We have a good example of that in today's debate.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Nottingham, East will not mind me saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), and others of my hon. Friends representing Nottinghamshire have lobbied me assiduously about the line. I pay tribute to all the local representatives of all parties who played a part in raising its profile.
I might, of course, be tempted to make a mild political point were I not conscious of where I am standing. If I were to make that mildly political point, it might be to point out that the town of Mansfield—which has a population of more than 100,000—lost its passenger railway in 1964. That was the result of a study instigated by the previous Conservative Government and implemented by the then Labour Government. For the next 30 years, Governments of both persuasions—but notably Labour Governments—did absolutely nothing to bring back into use the line of which the hon. Member for Nottingham, East speaks so supportively and persuasively. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that a Conservative Government have provided resources

to bring the railway back to life. I know that the hon. Gentleman, with his customary fairness, will wish to acknowledge that and I am happy to put it on record.

Mr. Heppell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Norris: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I do not allow him to intervene.
We all agree entirely that the Robin Hood railway line is a valuable addition to the rail network. Let us look briefly at the success so far. Stage 1 opened in May 1993 between Nottingham and Hucknall and Newstead. The Bulwell station opened in May 1994. I was pleased that the Department contributed some £367,000 in supplementary credit approvals for that purpose.
Construction of stage 2 is now well under way, but problems on site have meant that the work is now running several months behind. We all agree that the engineering task was considerable. The total line from Nottingham to Mansfield is 19 miles.
While I do not wish to detract from the achievements, stage 1 was the easy part; it involved bringing an existing line up to passenger standard, when it had formerly been used only for freight traffic. There is no line at all between Newstead and Kirkby in Ashfield and the engineers have had a task not dissimilar to that of the great railway builders of the past age. Rather than constructing a tunnel, they have had to clear the old Kingsway tunnel of the colliery shale which had been deposited there. It was quite a challenging engineering task.
Unforeseen ground conditions at the portal to the tunnel meant delay to the bulk earth works and that was later exacerbated by the prolonged rains last November. Working on a railway line is, of course, not the same as building a road. There is a limited number of accesses to rail link sites, which makes it difficult to increase activity dramatically to make up time.
I should say something about our commitment so far to the reopening of the line. It is fair and square in line with our policy for traffic decongestion and encouraging a shift away from the private car towards public transport. The hon. Member for Streatham will know that I am signed up to that policy, as he is. We share a great deal in this area. It means buses as well as trains and light rail schemes where they represent value for money.
The public response to stage 1 of the Robin Hood line has been encouraging and, with park-and-ride facilities at the new Sutton Parkway station, there is further encouragement for people to leave their cars behind, either at home or at the station.
We are currently providing £6.5 million towards stage 2, £2.55 million of which is in the form of a section 56 grant. Such grants are available only for projects of exceptional merit for reasons of size, or, in this case, of a cross-boundary nature, where it is right to spread the costs beyond one local authority. That grant is justified primarily in terms of benefits to non-users—in other words, the traffic congestion benefits—and on the ground that the costs associated with those benefits cannot be met directly from revenue.
The hon. Gentleman has highlighted a number of difficulties affecting the scheme. The first involves capital costs. Nottinghamshire county council notified us that the cost of the full scheme has now risen from £16.6 million to £19.1 million.
I should explain that the construction of stage 2 is being managed by Railtrack's major project division under the guidance of Railtrack's midland zone, which is the sponsor, and that the value of the work is around £9 million. The civil engineering contract for the rail link, but not covering the track work and signalling, is the responsibility of Nottinghamshire county council and its own contractors on site.
It is the work on the rail link that has caused slippage to the project for the reasons that I have already explained. That has affected Railtrack's own costs and a contingency has been allowed within the £2.5 million increase for an extension of the signalling installation work within the present contract end date. That, in turn, means extra supervision and project management costs.
Despite what the hon. Gentleman said about spiralling costs, I think that he understands that they are not solely, or even mainly, the result of railway privatisation. Clearly, there are costs associated with the restructuring of the railways, but they are very much outweighed by previously poor estimating, some changes to the scope of the project and contingencies.
Over the past months Railtrack has attempted to regularise the position, establishing proper contractual relationships so that each party knows the amount being charged for the work carried out. They have moved, as far as possible, to a position of fixed-price contracts, where possible by competitive tender, given time scales and other constraints. The objective has been to give the county council as much confidence as possible over the anticipated final cost of the project.
My Department is in close touch with the county on the project and my wish to see stage 3 through to a successful conclusion is undiminished. In many ways it is the key element to the entire scheme.
We acknowledge that there is a funding gap and we have asked the county council to submit further information so that we can consider all the implications. I hope that, with continued co-operation, it will be possible to deal with the current difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman referred to increases in operational costs because of rolling stock leasing and track access charges. We have already accepted—I made this point to the county council—that the changes could affect the financial performance of the new service. I told the council that if the effect proved significant, it should be brought out in the further documentation that we have requested, and we would then reconsider the funding position and the split between grant and borrowings.
In regard to track access charges, I understand that the five-year operating agreement with BR to expire on 31 March 1998 was deliberately intended to give a degree of

shielding from full charges during the initial period. My Department was not a party to that agreement, but it is one that the county council and the British Railways Board, and subsequently Railtrack, negotiated. Future infrastructure charges will be subject to the scrutiny of the Rail Regulator.
Stage 3 would take rail services to Worksop. Funding for local authority transport capital investment is made available through transport policies and programme. On the basis of TPP bids, a decision is taken on resource allocation and we normally make an announcement in mid-December.
In that context, we now have in place the package approach. Packages are essentially about a coherent local transport strategy for the area concerned. Nottinghamshire has done well in that respect. I pay tribute to that and £1.6 million has been allocated to the Greater Nottinghamshire area package for 1995–96.
Nottinghamshire included stage 3 in its TPP bid on the basis that work could commence in late 1996. It might be argued, therefore, that any bid for funding was premature at this stage. We have told Nottinghamshire county council that we are not able to fund stage 3 this year as a value for money case has yet to demonstrated, but it is open to the county to make a bid in its next TPP for resources in 1996–97. Incidentally, those bids are expected by 31 July each year.
We would like the county council to carry out some more work on the scheme appraisal, which currently shows a significant shortfall not covered by the decongestion benefits. Although we will be happy to work with the county council over the coming months, and stage 3 is relevant, we must concentrate on completing stage 2 satisfactorily in the next few months.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about differ-ent treatment between passenger transport authorities and his own authority. He was right to quote from my letter to him of 23 December. As I stated in that communication, PTAs and PTEs have statutory responsibilities as against those of transport and highway authorities, which have in this sense discretionary responsibilities. It would be unreasonable to place too much reliance on that as an argu-ment for dealing in a fundamentally different way with infrastructure that ultimately will serve the same markets and people doing the same things. I indicated that I am pre-pared to examine that aspect but I do not want to set hard and fast rules now, except to say that it is clearly of import-ance to a scheme of this sort.
I share many of the aspirations of hon. Members representing constituencies in the area in question, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has found time to join me on the Front Bench as an indication of his own concern. I will certainly look at the matter again.

Yorkshire Water (Textile Industry)

2 pm

Mr. Graham Riddick: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise an issue of great concern to a number of firms in my constituency and throughout Yorkshire—the reception charge that Yorkshire Water intends to introduce for receiving trade effluent and sewage. Coming as it does on top of existing high charges, it will hit the textile industry—particularly dyers and finishers. Other industry sectors will be similarly affected. Dickinsons Dairy of Holmfirth, well-known producers of yoghurts and creams, also faces a large increase in charges.
My constituency contains a significant number of textile companies, many of which have written to me. I can do no better than quote a letter from Mr. S. H. Gledhill, joint managing director of James Dyson Ltd. in Linthwaite near Huddersfield:
As a small company employing 50 people, following a management buy-out in 1989, we have improved our performance through the recession with the co-operation of our work force and a vigorous sales campaign. Over this period we have received swingeing increases from Yorkshire Water, well in excess of published inflation figures. We have, of course, introduced tighter control of effluent and also made capital investments to meet the National Rivers Authority and EC legislative requirements. Maintaining business in highly competitive times is extremely difficult and only so much can be absorbed through improved efficiency … Our current annual bill is around £36,000 and after three years this will be increased to £96,000, a rise of 150 per cent. Because the proposed increases are so high, businesses are likely to be affected detrimentally when trying to pass them on to their customers. As you are no doubt aware, retailers are very resistant to paying any increases at all at the present time.
Companies affected by the new charge will receive no new or additional service. It is based simply on the volume of effluent discharged into the sewer. Yorkshire Water justifies the new charge on the grounds that it is getting industry to pay a proper share of waste treatment costs and that domestic customers are currently subsidising industrial customers.
Yorkshire Water and Ofwat have failed totally to provide facts or figures to substantiate those claims. Out of the blue and without consultation, Yorkshire Water wrote to trade customers last November saying that the new reception charge would be 15p per cubic metre in 1995–96, rising to 33p the following year and 50p in 1997–98. Yorkshire Water, no doubt in response to the furore that it created, told local companies this week that the charge will be 10.1p per cubic metre the first year and phased in over five years. We have made some progress, but the cost in the first year alone will range from £5,000 for a small firm to £60,000 for a local firm, Brooke Dyeing.
Once the full charge is introduced, the additional cost will range from £18,000 to a massive £245,000 for Brooke Dyeing. That successful textiles company employs 300 people at four sites within a five-mile radius of Meltham. Finding an extra £245,000 is a tall order for Brooke Dyeing, as it is for any company.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new reception charge, which is being implemented without consultation, comes on top of millions of pounds of investment in effluent plants by the

Yorkshire textile industry over the past two or three years, to conform with the regulations that my hon. Friend mentioned?

Mr. Riddick: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Yorkshire Water has moved the goal posts and created difficulties for companies. My hon. Friend emphasises the action taken by local firms.
The consequence of absorbing Yorkshire Water's increased charges could be a reduction in employment at the firms affected and in the money available for investment. I find extraordinary the arrogant manner in which Yorkshire Water simply informed its customers of the new charge and that Ofwat appears to have been perfectly happy to go along with it without properly scrutinising Yorkshire Water's proposals.
One of my constituents told me, "If I treated my customers the way Yorkshire Water treated us, I would lose their business." Yorkshire Water may have felt able to behave that way because it has a monopoly—but that is why the Government introduced the existing regulation system. Ofwat exists to ensure that water companies do not abuse their monopolies.
Yorkshire Water claims that 12 per cent. of sewage comes from traders but that they contribute only 1 per cent. to the costs of the sewerage system. The Yorkshire branch of Ofwat says that only a small number of industrial customers account for 40 per cent. of Yorkshire Water's sewage but are not paying 40 per cent. of the cost of disposal. No evidence has been forthcoming from Yorkshire Water or Ofwat to justify those claims, which are not entirely consistent.
Local industrialists stress that they entirely accept the "polluter pays" principle but are not prepared to tolerate a massive hike in trade effluent charges without full and proper justification—and that has not been forthcoming. Industry believes that it pays its fair share. It appears that Ofwat almost connived with Yorkshire Water in the way that the reception charge was introduced. In a letter to me dated 20 December 1994, Yorkshire Water's director of water services stated that the proposals were discussed with the Director General of Water Services, who
'does not approve them' but satisfies himself that any undue discrimination element has been removed.
However, on 22 December, the chairman of Ofwat's customer services committee wrote to me, saying that he had asked Yorkshire Water to attend the committee's next meeting
to explain the reasons for its change in charging policy.
He added that he awaited a clear statement from the company on the rationale for its rebalancing exercise. Does the Yorkshire branch of Ofwat not know what its head office is doing?
To be fair, I received a letter this morning from Eric Wilson, who heads the Yorkshire branch of Ofwat and is clearly concerned.

Mrs. Peacock: It is a bit late for that.

Mr. Riddick: Exactly as my hon. Friend says. I thought that the regulator's purpose was to ensure that water companies behave properly and reasonably. If that was the case with Yorkshire Water, Ofwat should have acted to ensure that the industry was properly consulted and had time to adjust to the new charges, and that all the information on which the new charge was based was made available. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm


that Ofwat has a responsibility to ensure that water companies behave reasonably towards industrial customers? Is he in a position to tell us why Ofwat did not ensure that Yorkshire Water consulted widely on the new charge?

Mr. John Gunnell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his account of the difficulties faced by companies in his constituency, and of what appear to be the inadequate responses of the regulator, suggests some fundamental weaknesses in the way in which Yorkshire Water, as a monopoly provider in the area, has been set up and the powers of the regulator? Will he be demanding the evidence which I agree is necessary to prove that domestic consumers are footing the bill and that, as he suggested, many companies are getting off lightly? Does he believe that the figures should be made public by the regulator?

Mr. Riddick: I have made it clear that I think that Ofwat has fallen short in this instance. It clearly has a responsibility to ensure that Yorkshire Water does not exploit its monopoly position. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Donald Thompson: Yorkshire Water has a monopoly only in Yorkshire. Yorkshire textile manufacturers could move their businesses to Scotland where they would find skilled and able people and where Scottish Water does not impose an effluent charge. Scotland wants to attract the textile industry. My hon. Friend has secured this debate because Yorkshire cloth is world renowned. It is the benchmark by which all other cloth is measured—there is nothing to compare it with. In one sense, therefore, Yorkshire Water does not have a monopoly. It will simply drive careful business men to other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Riddick: My hon. Friend makes a telling point although, fortunately, Yorkshire has many other assets to make it an attractive place for investment. However, I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point.
In the textile industry, orders are often booked up to 12 months in advance. The industry heard only last November of the new charge to be introduced from April this year and therefore had only six months in which to prepare itself for a wholly unexpected additional cost.
Local companies have been faced with significant increases in trade effluent charges in recent years. The charges for the current year—1994–95—went up by 11.1 per cent., well above the rate of inflation. That was because, in March 1993, Yorkshire Water informed the industry:
Tariff adjustments are being made to ensure that our different customer groups contribute their fair share towards the cost of each service. This re-balancing is taking place over a three year period.
The industry suddenly finds itself being subjected to another rebalancing exercise and one has to ask what went wrong with the previous one. My information is that, once Yorkshire Water's reception charge has been fully implemented, its effluent discharge charges will be either the highest or second highest in the country.
The Confederation of British Wool Textiles said that, because the reception charge is based on volume, the incentive for the industry to reduce pollutant concentration will be destroyed. In support of the claim that industrial dischargers are not paying their way, Yorkshire Water says that domestic effluent is easier to

treat than industrial effluent. Yet the confederation has pointed out that Yorkshire Water's own figures disprove that. They show that the average chemical oxygen demand for domestic and industrial effluent is 965 mg per litre whereas dyehouses only effluent is in the range 400 to 700 mg per litre.
The head of Yorkshire Water's trade effluent section admitted at a meeting of the CBWT that Yorkshire Water needs trade effluent to dilute domestic effluent which tends to be more solid. I do not want to offend the sensibilities of any hon. Member by going into more detail, but it is an important point. These are the type of issues that Yorkshire Water should have discussed with its customers. Ofwat should also have ensured that they were debated properly before the new reception charge was imposed.
Most people accept that large treatment plants operate more efficiently than small plants and that individual companies do not have the financial resources or the space to install their own effluent treatment plants. The CBWT made the point that it would have been in everyone's interest if Yorkshire Water had tried to work with the industry to establish a few large treatment works rather than the present number of smaller units. This has not happened because Yorkshire Water, apparently with the green light from Ofwat, has not consulted the industry properly.
I have a suggestion to make. When we privatised British Telecom and British Gas it was felt that it would be very difficult to introduce competition in those two industries because it was not possible to duplicate the infrastructure that was already physically in place. However, since privatisation, we have achieved just that and the new Gas Bill takes that process much further. Has my hon. Friend's Department considered the possibility of introducing more competition in the sewerage industry? If not, perhaps it should do so.
I suppose that the textile industry in Yorkshire should be grateful for small mercies. As I said, companies have now been informed that the reception charge to be introduced from 1 April is to be 10.1p per cubic metre, not 15p as originally notified. Yorkshire Water has also now said that the reception charge is to be phased in over five years rather than three. That will make the new charge slightly easier for companies to cope with, but it is still a massive additional cost for them to bear. Yorkshire Water has refused to tell companies whether the final charge will remain at the originally proposed 50p per cubic metre.
I believe that Yorkshire Water and Ofwat should re-examine the trade effluent reception charge. Is it really necessary? Let us have all the facts and figures out in the open so that companies can judge for themselves. If they are indeed not making their proper contribution, local companies will not be able to argue against the proposed new charge although they would still argue, justifiably, that the charge be phased in over a longer period.
Of course, I am well aware of the need to keep charges to domestic users as low as possible. I do not believe, however, that Yorkshire Water's recent treatment of local companies which, after all, create many jobs for our constituents, can be justified. I therefore hope that, as a result of this debate and the representations made by many people and many local companies, the proposed reception charge will be reviewed and postponed and introduced only if and when it has been justified.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) for having raised this matter and for having done it so delicately. I thought for a moment that it was going to be diverted into other pipelines. The central issue is the effect of the impending charge, or change in the charge, by Yorkshire Water and its method of charging for the handling of trade effluent. I shall deal succinctly with a few points, trying to miss some of the more scientific ones and, shall we say, the diagnosis of the differences in density between types of sewage. We can leave those for my hon. Friend to take to the meetings, which I am sure will take place.
My hon. Friend asked directly whether I could confirm that Ofwat has a responsibility to ensure that water companies behave reasonably to industrial customers. I can confirm that but feel that it needs a little expansion. The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) briefly mentioned Ofwat's responsibilities. Ofwat has a duty to ensure that the interests of every customer, domestic and commercial, are protected in respect of the fixing and recovery of charges and other terms on which all the services are provided.
As my hon. Friend is obviously well aware, Yorkshire Water—unlike all other water companies—currently has a system of standing charges for trade effluent. It now proposes to return to a system more related to the "polluter pays" system that it used until the mid-1980s. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that that will ultimately prove more equitable, and it is along the same lines as the arrangements used by all other water companies, some of which also have textile manufacturers in their areas—competitors, in other words. From the point of view of Ofwat—and ultimately, I am sure, from the House's point of view—that approach must be fairer to all other trade and domestic users in Yorkshire, and to textile industry competitors elsewhere in the country.
As ever, the impact of the changes on traders will not be uniform. I understand that approximately 30 per cent. of trade customers may well gain from them, while 40 per cent. will face increases of perhaps 50 per cent. over five years. Regrettably, 9 per cent. of traders will face an increase of more than £10,000—at 1994–95 prices—over the same period. That means that the majority of traders will either gain from the changes, or face an increase of no more than £500.
As my hon. Friend will know, the main gainers will be the domestic customers who are currently effectively supporting the textile industry. As predicted, while those who have been hit by the proposed charges—and some have been hit quite hard—are protesting loudly, the gainers are conspicuous by their silence.

Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend telling us that specific reductions will be made in the bills of Yorkshire Water's domestic customers?

Sir Paul Beresford: I do not think that my hon. Friend is as naive as that. Surely she appreciates that it is a case of relative or proportional costs. I detect by her smile that she does.
As I was saying, the gainers have been conspicuous by their silence, but I suppose that that can be put down to human nature. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, however, the biggest difficulty for the industry has been the lack of sufficient warning before the announcement. It is in that connection particularly that I side with my hon. Friend and others who have spoken, and it is in that connection that my hon. Friend seeks some action by Ofwat.
Ofwat has, in fact, already intervened in compliance with its duty to the water industry's customers. As my hon. Friend pointed out, in seeking explanations from Yorkshire Water, Ofwat has succeeded in persuading it to phase the introduction of the reception charge over five years rather than the three originally proposed. Furthermore, the prospect of today's debate stimulated Yorkshire Water to act: the company has written to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who is responsible for water, saying that it will take account of the industry's problems and consider the possibility of phasing in the reception charge over a number of years. It would appear, therefore, that while Ofwat has prised open the door, my hon. Friend and others have now enabled traders to approach Yorkshire Water directly through that door.
My hon. Friend asked whether additional competition could be introduced. I can reassure him that we are keen to introduce more competition in the water industry where appropriate, and a number of measures in the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992 will facilitate that. We are continuing to consider possible ways of increasing scope for competition. It must be sensible to take advantage of every opportunity to promote fair competition, which will benefit all customers, whether domestic or commercial. If hon. Members feel that they have a contribution to make after the dust resulting from this small issue has settled, I shall be delighted to receive suitable suggestions. I emphasise the word "suitable".
One of the advantages of the "polluter pays" approach on one hand and protests over costs on the other is that the combination sharpens attitudes to conservation and efficiency on both sides of the discussion. Today's debate has, I believe, contributed to persuading Yorkshire Water of the need for improved efficiency; and a progressively fairer allocation of costs may persuade some of the larger textile industries in particular to consider recycling, or at least to examine ways of reducing usage. I was interested by the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson)—who has now disappeared—but I fear that the idea that major industries will up sticks and move to Scotland may be pie in the sky.
My hon. Friend has used the debate to concentrate our minds constructively on resolving the issue. I believe that that will eventually lead to a fairer system, and encourage efficiency and conservation. Like the rest of the country, we are rightly moving towards a "user pays" system: as I have said, Yorkshire Water has used that system in the past, and it is currently employed by all other water companies.
We must accept that the extent and abruptness of the rise in charges has come as a commercial shock to some traders, especially in the textile industry. The attack launched by my hon. Friend has opened the door, and ensured an improved response from Yorkshire


Water. I encourage him to continue his campaign of persuasion, and in particular to campaign for more competition in the present system. It is a difficult task; such competition must he reasonable and must reflect the mixed needs of domestic and trade users of sewerage and water supplies.
Ofwat has taken appropriate action, both in persuading Yorkshire Water to lengthen the phasing-in period and in persuading it that its current arrangements are unfair to the majority of users. Today's debate has inspired action from Yorkshire Water and forced it to listen further; I hope that that trend will continue.

Mr. Riddick: I find it rather surprising that Yorkshire Water's announcement came out of the blue, and that apparently there was no proper consultation between the company and Ofwat in the preceding

months. If there had been, surely Ofwat would have told the company that it must talk to the industry about the charge. Can my hon. Friend shed any light on the discussions that took place before November?

Sir Paul Beresford: I cannot do so directly, but I look forward to my hon. Friend's report of discussions with the Office of Water Services and Yorkshire Water. The introduction of more competition means that, of course, new systems will have to be commercially sensitive. Today's debate and some of the cross reactions and words—made with some justification—will warn water companies to ensure that they think twice before charging too promptly into action.

It being twenty-eight minutes past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Martyn Jones to ask Question 1—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not here. My goodness, what a bad start—I call Mr. Gunnell to ask Question 2.

Invest in Britain Bureau

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total Government funding for the Invest in Britain Bureau for (a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95; and how much of that sum in each year was made available in total to the regional development organisations.

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The totals for my Department's programme expenditure on inward investment in those three years are £7.8 million, £8.8 million and £10.6 million respectively. Those include grants to regional development organisations of £5 million, £6 million and £7.2 million.

Mr. Gunnell: In setting the 1995–96 budgets, will the President of the Board of Trade recognise the excellent partnership between the Invest in Britain Bureau and the regional development organisations? Does he agree that investment successes, such as the recent attraction of a Korean company to north Yorkshire, are due to companies seeing themselves as entering the European Union and that pandering to the sceptics is potentially damaging to our continued inward investment success?

Mr. Heseltine: The House should have no doubt at all that the remarkable success in attracting inward investment into the United Kingdom is due to the UK being seen as the most effective place to trade, invest and manufacture in the European Union and the Government are determined to keep it that way. That is why we are so opposed to the Labour party policy of introducing the social chapter.

Mrs. Peacock: I welcome the figures given by my right hon. Friend on the Invest in Britain Bureau. Does he have figures for investment by British companies in British industry? Is he aware that in my part of west Yorkshire, millions of pounds have been invested in manufacturing, new jobs and new technology since 1983?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures could be easily provided and are in the public domain. The latest forecast by the Confederation of British Industry showed growing intentions to invest further, which is much to be welcomed. There has also been very widespread investment by British companies overseas.

Mr. Wigley: Will the President of the Board of Trade clarify whether the figures that he mentioned include any contribution to the Welsh Development Agency in view of the work that that agency does? If his figures did not include any such contribution, is he confident that the WDA is receiving adequate resources for its important

work, which is of general benefit not only to Wales but to the UK despite cuts in its budget and the fact that it now has to fund its activities by selling off its assets?

Mr. Heseltine: Everyone is aware of the remarkable success of the WDA under this Government and the inward investment that it has attracted. The Invest in Britain Bureau acts as an umbrella organisation across the entire United Kingdom. Although the regional development organisations are specifically located in England, there is an interplay between the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, for Scotland and for Wales and myself: put the whole lot together and we are attracting a far and away more advantageous share of inward investment than any of the other European Union members.

Gas Care Services

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ensure that British Gas will continue to maintain its free gas care services for the elderly, disabled and blind.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will meet the Gas Regulator to discuss the future of services to gas customers who have disabilities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Charles Wardle): British Gas has made it clear that it will not cut the services that it offers to the elderly or disabled, and that it will not introduce charges for such services. The forthcoming Gas Bill will provide that all suppliers make special services available to those groups of customers.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a 15 per cent. cut in the price of gas in real terms since privatisation, even after allowing for the recent increase in VAT, and that customers have therefore had an extremely good deal from British Gas? In those circumstances, the interests of those in society who are less able to look after themselves—the old, the disabled and the blind—should be fully protected. Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that those interests are fully protected both now and, above all, under the new Gas Bill? When the industry is deregulated such services will come under further pressure.

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right about the fall in gas prices; he will also know that the standing charge has fallen by 28 per cent. in real terms since privatisation. British Gas is not cutting special services. It was made clear in the consultation document last May that all suppliers of gas would have to offer such special services, and that obligation will be written into the Bill which will be published shortly.

Mr. Jones: Why can the Minister not guarantee that British Gas will continue to offer the sort of free service currently available to the blind and disabled? We have heard rumours that under the new regime the company will charge blind people up to £25 for the privilege of having their meters read. Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no additional charges for disabled or blind people?

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman should not listen to such rumours or stir such mischief. He knows that British


Gas provides the special services to about 1 million customers, at a cost of about £30 million, and that the company has no intention of charging for them.

Mr. James Hill: My hon. Friend will be aware that the gas companies are very capable of helping in the regions, especially in connection with the arts, culture, the support of orchestras, and so on. Clearly there is much good will in the British Gas corporation, but will my hon. Friend ask it again to dispense with the myth that heavy penalties may fall on the elderly, the disabled and the blind?

Mr. Wardle: I am happy to confirm yet again that there will be no such penalties. It is also worth adding that safety remains of paramount importance to British Gas. The company has recently spent more than £1,000 million on replacing pipelines in the interests of safety, and routinely spends £100 million a year on safety checks and measures.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: But Michael Alexander, the director of public gas supply, has said that he cannot guarantee the special services unless there is a level playing field. Paragraph 6.11 of the Minister's discussion document says that obligations to elderly and disabled gas customers are a matter for debate; the document also says that it may be unnecessary to retain prescribed levels of service. If the Minister thinks that he can pretend otherwise, he is a nitwit.

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman is in more than usually excited and excitable form. I hope that he will bear in mind what the consultation document says—that a condition of the licence that gas suppliers will need before they can supply domestic consumers is that they must offer such special services. So who is the nitwit?

Small Firms

Mr. Rathbone: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of new businesses started up in 1994 were small firms employing 20 people or fewer.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): Almost all the 450,000 businesses started up in 1994 had fewer than 20 employees.

Mr. Rathbone: My hon. Friend's answer illustrates the Government's success in helping small businesses to start up. Can he give an indication of the numbers employed in those firms and what benefit those firms had in establishing themselves from our membership of the European Union?

Mr. Taylor: Last year was the first for about four years in which there was a net increase in the number of firms, with a rise of about 24,000. That suggests that we have a strengthening economy, which is one of the best factors for encouraging small businesses to perform. Membership of the EU is also important in terms of widening the home market. The Department of Trade and Industry continues to give considerable attention and support to small companies, particularly those involved in high technology. We have launched and adapted the Smart and Spur schemes, which are targeted at smaller companies bringing forward new ideas and technology.

Mr. Bell: The Minister could have said more about small firms, but he did not have the opportunity. We lost

55,000 small firms in 1993, and one in three small firms goes to the wall every three years. Is there not still a finance gap which means that small firms are not getting long-term finance, a skills gap which means they are not getting the core skills, and a government gap because there is no proper statutory definition of a small firm? Will the Minister promise the House and the small business community that we shall have that definition?

Mr. Taylor: I am not sure that small firms are particularly interested in statutory definitions—they are interested in success. The hon. Gentleman's own definition shows that two out of three firms do survive, and it is important to remember that starting up a business is a risk. The Government must get the economic climate right, and that is what we are doing. We must also target innovative schemes, providing support through business links and special loan facilities where the normal banking arrangements perhaps cannot function, and we must encourage companies to tackle the new high-tech challenges with entrepreneurial spirit. I think that the Government have a good record, and the hon. Gentleman might reconsider the tone of his question.

Mr. Harris: The economy of west Cornwall is absolutely dependent on small firms. While I welcome and agree with what my hon. Friend said, does he recognise that many small firms are coming under increased pressure as a result of the current revaluation? Will he have discussions with the Department of the Environment and with the Inland Revenue, which carried out the revaluations, and look at the basis of them? I can assure my hon. Friend that they are imposing a tremendous burden on small firms, despite the transitional relief that the Government have introduced.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has taken that into account. The Government realise that revaluations can be difficult, and therefore transitional arrangements were brought in. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government office for the south-west is alive to the difficulties faced by companies in that region and has targeted particular help to them. Some of that help has been targeted through European Union structural funds. I believe that those schemes are now bearing fruit. Any company in the south-west that is concerned about the schemes should contact the Government director, who will provide further information.

Takeover Bids

Mr. Wareing: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many successful takeover bids have been notified to him in the last five years; and what information he has on the number of takeovers in Germany during the same period.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): There is no requirement for takeover bids to be notified and we keep no records of successful bids. Over the last five years, around 1,000 mergers qualified for investigation under the Fair Trading Act 1973, while more than 7,000 mergers were notified to the German competition authorities.

Mr. Wareing: I believe that there are more than 40 contested takeover bids per year in Britain, compared with fewer than 40 in a decade in Germany. Is not the


ease with which takeovers can take place in this country a basic reason for the short-termism and the lack of investment in British industry? What are the Government's proposals to deal with this? For example, they could restrict the voting rights of shareholders or—more importantly, so far as I am concerned—they could set up supervisory boards on which workers could have a say. What happened to the Dorrell inquiry set up by the Government?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman's perception of the distinction between the German and British systems is incorrect. Under German rules, all takeovers must be notified. In Britain, some 2 per cent. of qualifying mergers which are considered by the competition authorities result either in the bid being blocked or in undertakings being required, compared with only 0.5 per cent. of those examined in Germany.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the features of a free market is that the Government do their level best to keep out of the natural coming together and breaking apart of businesses unless a monopoly is being created? The Opposition should be exposed: they believe that the Government should be involved in every one of the mechanisms, thus distorting the market.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right that the mere fact that a bid may be hostile is not a reason to refer it. The Government's view is that competition is the primary factor that should be the subject of examination. Of course, where necessary, the public interest also has to be considered by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Dr. Moonie: Is the Minister aware of growing anxiety in the medical research community about the takeover of Wellcome by Glaxo? Has he sought any assurances from Sir Richard Sykes about the level of research in both companies following any proposed merger? What advice will the Department give to the European Union when the bid is submitted to it for reference?

Mr. Evans: I shall not pre-empt the outcome of the issue, which may be considered by the appropriate competition authorities. I am sure that in those circumstances the hon. Gentleman will make his representations clearly. The Government have a record that is second to none on support for the medical research community.

Mr. Batiste: Will my hon. Friend confirm that many of Britain's most successful companies today are the result of takeovers and bids in the past? Does he agree that that is an integral part of the dynamism of a successful market economy? Does not the original question to my hon. Friend demonstrate how little the Labour party understands about market economics?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right. Furthermore, from the responses that I have given, my hon. Friend will have noted how wide of the mark the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) was.

East London

Mr. Gapes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to provide assistance to the London borough of Redbridge and include it in initiatives to help the regeneration of east London.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Partnerships in the London borough of Redbridge will be eligible to compete again this year for support for new projects in the second round of the single regeneration budget.

Mr. Gapes: Does the Minister know where the London borough of Redbridge is? From his answer, it appears that he has no idea. Is he aware that all the surrounding boroughs in east London are included either in the initiatives by the President of the Board of Trade for the east Thames corridor or in the Lea valley programmes? My borough of Redbridge has received not a penny from single regeneration budget projects. Is it not about time the Minister recognised that in my constituency one in seven males are unemployed and 11.2 per cent. of the population are unemployed compared with the national average of 8.5 per cent.? Why do we not get support in Redbridge when we need it?

Mr. Wardle: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes, I do know where it is, but I wonder whether he does, and also whether he realises that the London borough of Redbridge submitted five outline bids for the first round of the single regeneration budget but chose not to put any of them in as final bids.

Mr. Evennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Thames gateway provides tremendous opportunities for Redbridge and other boroughs north of the Thames and for boroughs such as mine in Bexley, south of the Thames? Does he agree that co-operation and enthusiasm from the Opposition as well as from business men and Government is needed to get the project off the ground?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that he agrees that it is a pity that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) did not sing the praises of the London East training and enterprise council and its schemes, which provide help to Redbridge through a local office which also covers Waltham Forest. The hon. Gentleman should also, perhaps, have talked about the merits of the London business link network, which is developing as it should.

Regional Electricity Companies

Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice his Department has given the Office of Electricity Regulation on mergers and acquisitions of regional electricity companies.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: None.

Mr. Marshall: I thank the Minister for that curt and short reply. Does he agree that the recent bid for Northern Electric highlights the weakness of the Government's position in terms of seeking to foster regional electricity companies that are responsive to local need and intent on fostering a regional identity? If he accepts that, how does he intend to ensure continued ministerial and


parliamentary control over electricity policy? Will he refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as a number of his hon. Friends are urging him to do?

Mr. Evans: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will give careful consideration to all aspects of the specific case raised by the hon. Gentleman before announcing his decision in due course. I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that when the Director General of Fair Trading gives his advice to the President of the Board of Trade, he takes account of all relevant factors including any views that may be forthcoming from the Director General of Electricity Supply.

Mr. Brooke: Before we become immersed in a series of possibly irrelevant issues, does my hon. Friend agree that if the bidder for Northern Electric was within the European Union the only consideration to which the bid would be subject would be competition? If a British bidder is involved, would it not be sensible for the same conditions to apply here?

Mr. Evans: My right hon. Friend will understand that the decision will be taken in accordance with the statute and with the practice followed by the President of the Board of Trade in relation to all such matters. My right hon. Friend will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage.

Mr. Beggs: What assessment has been made of the likely impact of the acquisitions and mergers of regional electricity companies on the ultimate price that industrial users of electricity have to pay? Does the Minister agree that highly priced electricity is most likely to damage our existing industries and that it threatens our ability to attract inward investment?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one factor to be taken into account by the President of the Board of Trade in the case in question will be the views of the Director General of Electricity Supply. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the regulator is given specific powers in this area.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not wish to draw my hon. Friend further, but does he accept that many Conservative Members hope that this particular bid will be referred to the commission?

Mr. Evans: I note the views expressed in those measured tones by my hon. Friend. I assure him that all views expressed in relation to this matter will be given appropriate and detailed consideration.

Dr. John Cunningham: Is the Minister clear that the powers of the regulator will be sufficient to safeguard consumers' interests if a succesful bid takes place, whether for Northern Electric or for any other regional electricity company? Is he satisfied that sufficiently effective and transparent accounting procedures will be put in place to ensure that any new owner of a regional electricity company will not be able to drain finance out of it for other purposes? Is his Department now satisfied that there is no question of insider dealing being involved in the Trafalgar House bid for Northern Electric?

Mr. Evans: I do not wish to pre-empt the decision to be made by the President of the Board of Trade on this. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the powers

given to the regulator. Those powers were given by the Government to protect the interests of consumers and the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to recall that.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that if regional electricity companies were immune from takeover they would have less incentive to become more efficient? Will he confirm that Trafalgar House has said that if it acquires Northern Electric consumers will receive a 30 quid bonus? Should we not consider the consumers rather than the esoteric views put forward by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)?

Mr. Evans: I am well aware of the views expressed by my hon. Friend, which are among a range of views expressed to the President of the Board of Trade on this. My hon. Friend will understand, however, why I shall not comment further on whether those views will ultimately prevail.

Coal Privatisation

Mr. Hood: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken or intends to take to protect local authorities from the effects of coal privatisation in relation to opencast mining sites; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Charles Wardle: The regulatory regime established by the Coal Industry Act 1994 affords substantial protection to third parties, including local authorities.

Mr. Hood: The Minister will know that the Dalquhandy opencast site in the Clydesdale constituency is the largest in Europe and that the cost of restoration will be at least £15 million. Having had a ministerial meeting with representatives of the council, he is also aware that the Government refuse to acknowledge that the Coal Industry Act 1994 transfers liability for that restoration directly from the Government to the local authority without consulting the local authority during the process of the Act or the restructuring agreement negotiated with the new co-owners. Will the Minister, first, answer the eight questions that he promised to answer when we met on 12 January and, secondly, even at this late stage underwrite the terrific cost, which could not be borne by the local authority? That cost would bang up the local authority and devastate the local community.

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of questions in correspondence and at a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I assure him that those matters are being dealt with. The Coal Industry Act 1994 gives the Department of Trade and Industry powers to ensure full continuity from British Coal to the successor companies, which have the same rights and obligations as British Coal. Planning consent and the enforcement of planning conditions remain matters for the planning authorities. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's concern about the ability to meet obligations for opencast sites, the Department checked carefully the financial status of the successor companies as part of the bid process.

Mr. Dover: Does my hon. Friend agree that, far from seeking protection, many local authorities welcome privatisation and particularly the selling off of


non-operational land such as Ellerbeck, an opencast mine near Chorley, which will enable the environment to be improved?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will be aware of this morning's debate, which dealt with precisely those subjects and in which some of the points that he has just raised were made.

Mr. O'Neill: The Minister has yet to give concrete assurances. Companies which have acquired mining rights in the UK—Budge and, in Scotland, Mining (Scotland) Ltd.—are narrowly based companies which do not have great resources. As they have been given massive responsibilities for opencasting, there must be some arrangement whereby local authorities are protected. The Minister has not yet come forward with such an arrangement. It is one thing to sweep the matter aside in the privatisation process and hand it over to the Coal Authority, but as the Coal Authority has no teeth and little inclination, local authorities will have to pick up the tab if anything goes wrong. Does the Minister accept that he has a lot of work to do, and quickly?

Mr. Wardle: The Act makes the operators' obligations clear. The key point is that all purchasers of British Coal's mines were subjected to a thorough scrutiny of financial viability. The new Coal Authority is required to check the financial strength of companies to which it envisages issuing licences in exactly the same fashion.

Steel Subsidies

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made concerning EU member states employing subsidies in steel production; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The Government have made their opposition to continued subsidies to steel producers very clear both to the Commission and to other member states. We have done this at Council meetings and in correspondence. Our lobbying will continue.

Mr. Jones: Does the Minister agree that the strip mills of Llanwern, Port Talbot and the sister plant at Shotton in my constituency are performing magnificently in producing the required products? What will happen, however, when the current excellent trading conditions for steel end? What will he do at the heart of Europe to ensure that member states cease cheating by employing subsidies against the best interests of British steel and British plant? So far, it seems to the Opposition that the Government are unable and unwilling to act.

Mr. Taylor: There is an inconsistency in the hon. Gentleman's question: the credit he has paid to the current production and capabilities of the steel mills in Wales compares with the policies of the Labour Government in the 1970s, when those mills performed extremely badly. I have already told the hon. Gentleman that Ministers are taking up problems with steel subsidies in the rest of the European Coal and Steel Community at every opportunity. Yesterday, in Brussels, I met Commissioner van Miert and raised that very issue with him. An important balance must be obtained. We will do no good, however, just by screaming from the sidelines. We must ensure that we have an overall package to persuade other member countries that they should reduce their subsidies

so that long-term competition in the industry, as shown by the excellent performance of British steel, will prevail. That will be achieved only through argument.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend agree that the extreme difficulty that Her Majesty's Government have already encountered in trying to persuade our European Union partners not to subsidise steel illegally would be made even more difficult if we went into a federal Europe as advocated by the Labour party, where we would have no chance of success?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend has particular views on the subject of Europe. As a Department of Trade and Industry Minister, my interest is in looking after British manufacturing. British manufacturers would find it impossible to compete in world markets if they did not perform strongly in their own home market—the European Union of 370 million people. Without strong institutions in the European Union, we would never be able to ensure that competition policies were properly put in place in other countries as they are in this one.

Mr. Wilson: Does the issue not go to the heart of Tory troubles on Europe? We have Ministers making different statements by the hour on their attitudes towards Europe, while the Prime Minister is a Euro-sceptic on a Monday, Wednesday and Friday and pro-European on a Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. What we need is action rather than words; yet when we need tough action in Europe, we throw away our ability to wield that influence in defence of our national industries because of the barbed messages that come out of the Government every hour and every day of the week.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should pay more attention to the excellent work of Under-Secretaries of State, who are fighting for Britain day after day in the Councils of Europe. There I was yesterday, face to face with Commissioner van Miert, saying that we want a strong Commission to enforce competition policy throughout the European Union. That is the consistent line that we take and I enjoy doing just that. I am delighted to say that a Belgian socialist has an acute understanding of why it is essential to have competition policy throughout the Union. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman compared notes with Commissioner van Miert, he might understand the subject better himself.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the subsidies currently given to the European nationalised steel industries are a disgrace, as are the subsidies paid to state monopolies in telecommunications? Does my hon. Friend further agree that those state monopolies in other European countries are gaining some support from the thought that even the Leader of the Opposition cannot remove clause IV from the socialist constitution on the basis that the Opposition still believe that one must subsidise industries to make them efficient?

Mr. Taylor: I shall leave the problem of clause IV to the private grief of the Labour party. In the European Union, it is important to attempt to achieve common rules and regulations. One can do that only with strong Community institutions—with a strong Commission making proposals about competition policy that are enforced and then backed up by the European Court. I remind the House that, if it were not for the European Court of Justice, it would not have been possible for us


to challenge the subsidy to Air France—as we are doing—and if it were not for a strong Commission, we would not have achieved the British Airways flights into Orly against the opposition of Air France. The European Union works for Britain when we enforce the rules, and that means working with the institutions.

Mr. Hardy: The Minister will recall that, 14 months ago, the Government proclaimed it a great triumph when the Council of Ministers said that it would carefully monitor that unfair trade. However, is the Minister aware that his recent written answer to me suggests that the Government have remarkably little knowledge of the results of the work of the monitors? When will the Government monitor the monitors to ensure that we can find out whether those practices are continuing or being stopped?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may wish us to monitor the monitors monitoring monitors. I simply want some action. We shall get action if we try to persuade other member countries of the long-term need to work towards non-subsidised industries. If the hon. Gentleman pays attention to the detail, he will realise that, in many cases, we have managed to persuade other countries, against internal political opposition, to transform the basis of the way in which they treat industries such as the steel industry. It is not an overnight success. All nations are confronted by domestic pressures, with industries that are declining. Nevertheless, the success of British steel is a sign of what could happen throughout the European Union, and domestic success is the best way for us to argue our case.

Manufacturing

Mr. Orme: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of future prospects for manufacturing in the north-west region.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: In the competitive international market, a wide range of north-west manufacturing companies continue to win major orders. The latest economic survey by the north-west chambers of commerce provides evidence that the manufacturing and the service sectors in the region are experiencing good levels of business and are showing confidence about their prospects for 1995.

Mr. Orme: Is the Minister aware that the drastic reduction in the engineering industry in the north-west has had a catastrophic effect on the north-west as a whole, and that further redundancies are being announced at British Aerospace? What action will the Government take to offset that problem? Has the Minister considered the proposals made by the Engineering Employers Federation, which has suggested a policy of development, investment and expansion in the engineering industry?

Mr. Evans: The Government continue to engage in a wide range of steps to help the north-western economy. That economy would be helped if more hon. Members representing constituencies in the north-west spoke up for the north-west and drew attention to the fact that, even in a climate in which unemployment has decreased consistently for the past two years, the north-west has played its part, with unemployment decreasing by more than 40,000 in the past 12 months. I remind the right hon.

Gentleman that the number of people employed in his constituency has increased by more than 1,000 in the past two years.

Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent Lloyds bank survey, showing that north-west businesses are enjoying a record surge on order books and in profits? Does that not augur well for the future of manufacturing industry in the north-west?

Mr. Evans: I am well aware of the information to which my hon. Friend refers. Undoubtedly, he is one of the hon. Members who portrays a positive view of the north-west, which is so important for winning new inward investment to Britain and to the north-west region.

Mr. Eastham: The Minister has boasted about what he has done for the north-west. I bring to his notice the fact that, in the past 15 years, Trafford Park industrial estate, which was one of the biggest engineering estates in Europe, has become almost a ghost town. We are closing down all the rolling stock companies, cuts are being made in aerospace and the place is a complete disaster, because of the effects of the Government's policies.

Mr. Evans: I am aware of the Trafford Park manufacturing institute and its specific initiative in that district, and officials from the Department are in contact about the initiative in relation to developments in Trafford Park. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman something to set against the image that he chose to give of the north-west: manufacturing investment in the north-west in the five years between 1988 and 1992 amounted to £9.4 billion. The hon. Gentleman would do better to talk up the region than to talk it down.

Industrial Activity

Mr. Mc William: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to increase industrial activity in the north-east region.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Overall Government assistance has created 35,000 jobs since 1986. The Department of Trade and Industry will continue to encourage local business through the business links system, through support for inward investment, and through measures set out in the competitiveness White Paper.

Mr. McWilliam: What steps does the Minister propose to take specifically to protect the manufacturing of ammunition in the north-east of England given the talks that are taking place between British Aerospace and GIAT of France, a wholly owned French Government company? That poses a threat to the royal ordnance factory at Birtley and to the jobs and the excellent work that the men do.

Mr. Taylor: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is greatly concerned for his constituency and his constituents who work at British Aerospace. It would be inappropriate for me, as a Minister, to intervene in discussions with a private sector company, but I hope that all companies, including British Aerospace, understand the importance of maintaining a presence in a vibrant north-east region. I visit the north-east regularly as sponsor Minister and have excellent meetings with Gateshead metropolitan borough council. There is an influx of inward investment and there is no sign that companies around the world have anything


other than the highest regard for the north-east. That may have a determining influence on the discussions to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Knapman: Would I be right in thinking that if a British-owned firm, such as an engineering firm in Gloucester, wished to expand its production or perhaps even export its production to Japan, no such subsidies would be available to it, but if a Japanese-owned firm wanted to set up in the north-east, several thousand pounds per job would be available for it? Is that wholly satisfactory?

Mr. Taylor: It is wholly satisfactory for those people employed by the Japanese company in the north-east. There is a constant flow of companies wishing to invest in the north-east-the most obvious recent example was the Korean company, Samsung, which is itself creating 3,000 jobs and to which another 3,000 jobs will be connected through local suppliers. That is extremely good news for the north-east of England and for Government assistance to inward investment. The north-east has benefited particularly from that, which is why the region's vibrancy is now the most striking feature I see when I visit it. I hope that when other north-east Members come to the House, they will talk up and praise what is happening in the north-east so that more and more people in the House appreciate the region.

Electricity (Standing Charges)

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will discuss with the Electricity Consumers Committee the benefits of abolishing standing charges to customers on low incomes.

Mr. Ian Taylor: That is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply and for the regional electricity companies, which must decide how best to structure their charges.

Mr. McAvoy: As electricity companies can afford share options worth £23 million to the executives and directors of National Power and PowerGen, does the Minister agree that those companies should use their profits to abolish standing charges, which would go a long way towards offsetting the extra cost of VAT on fuel imposed by the Government?

Mr. Taylor: For a start, the hon. Gentleman should know that electricity prices have been falling, which has been more than offsetting the cost of value added tax to the consumer. Secondly, it is within the remit of the regional electricity companies to abolish standing charges if they so wish—the Merseyside and North-Western electricity board has done so. Thirdly, in nearly all cases, standing charges have been frozen for the past two years, and where that has not happened, they have been reduced. I hope that the example set by Eastern Electricity only yesterday will be copied in other parts of the country.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my hon. Friend confirm that many executives who are leading the nation's privatised electricity companies are performing extremely well? Electricity prices have fallen in real terms and they are likely to continue to fall. Will he confirm that the executives at the head of our privatised utilities earn a

lot less than many of those who contributed to the Leader of the Opposition's fighting fund in his bid to lead his party?

Mr. Taylor: The job of senior management in any company, including electricity companies, is to run that company and ensure that it makes a profit which ultimately can be reinvested to improve services. As the electricity companies have clearly improved services since privatisation, senior management can be congratulated on those grounds. How they are remunerated is a matter for them and their shareholders.

Mr. Stevenson: The Minister said that standing charges have been frozen and have not increased, but does he realise that, in the five years following privatisation, standing charges in the Midlands electricity board area increased by no less than 33 per cent? Does he also realise that standing charges have not been frozen but have increased through the application of value added tax? Standing charges have nothing to do with the use of electricity and they hit those people on low incomes the hardest. When will the Government stand up for those on low incomes and intervene to remove standing charges?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should remember that the overall decline in electricity prices included standing charges. In the past two years, prices—even in the Midlands area—have been effectively frozen.
The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the help that is targeted on those who are most in need and he should also realise that, if standing charges were abolished, the cost would have to be recovered by changes in consumer pricing based on consumption. Many people have high levels of electricity consumption because of the way in which their houses are heated, and they would be penalised. The argument is not quite as simple as the hon. Gentleman makes out.

Coal Privatisation

Mr. Skinner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the reduced R. J. Budge bid prior to the privatisation contract from English pits; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Adjustments to RJB Mining's bid reflect developments since tenders were submitted in September 1994, or otherwise information which was not available to bidders at the time. The price paid by RJB Mining is still substantially higher than other tenders.

Mr. Skinner: How on earth can the Government justify the fact that a bidder for the English coal industry put in a bid of approximately £900 million, which was accepted as the highest bid, but the Department of Trade and Industry then reduced the bid to around £800 million? In other words, the Government have ripped off the taxpayer by £100 million.
If that practice occurred in local government, the councillors who accepted a bid and then reduced it by that kind of percentage would be surcharged and kicked out of office. The bid should be investigated and, what is


more, there should be an investigation of the Department of Trade and Industry which has allowed this sordid episode to occur.

Mr. Wardle: If the taxpayer has been ripped off anywhere, I suspect it is in the form of the £20,000 million in taxpayers' money that has subsidised the industry since 1979.
The hon. Gentleman must know that it was always intended to adjust tender prices to reflect developments that took place after the tenders were submitted. It is not a static situation and there was a reduction in all the successful bids. In any case, the price paid for the English bids was considerably higher than the other tenders.
The hon. Gentleman should remember that 28 deep mines which were owned previously by British Coal are now owned in the private sector. The hon. Gentleman has contributed to that process by shouting for more subsidies, resisting change and resisting the realities of the competitive world in which we live.

Mr. David Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that since we privatised the coal industry we have created jobs in that industry day in, day out? Does he further agree that when that lot opposite were in government during the 1960s and 1970s, they closed 325 pits at the cost of 250,000 miners' jobs? That is what that caring, sharing Labour party did.

Mr. Wardle: How could I possibly match my hon. Friend's eloquence and persuasive force? He is absolutely right. Those 28 deep mines are now in the private sector and they have the best chance they have had for years to prove how competitive they can be.

Mr. Clapham: Is the Minister aware that, out of the blue, the supervisory unions in the mining industry have been told that the industrial death and retirement scheme will be wound up? It is a scheme to which they have contributed and which has £2 million in funds. Can the Minister tell us why the scheme was not carried over under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981? What will happen to the £2 million in funds?

Mr. Wardle: Employment contracts for those whose jobs were transferred to the new enterprise are protected by TUPE, as the hon. Gentleman appreciates. The new industry-wide pension schemes are required to provide benefits no less advantageous than those provided by the mineworkers' scheme and by the staff superannuation scheme.

Trade Associations

Mr. Page: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department is taking to ensure that only a single trade association liaises with each industrial sector.

Mr. Heseltine: As I made clear in a speech at the CBI last week and on other occasions, I want to see powerful, well-resourced and effective trade associations which represent the interests of all within their sector. To encourage that process, I have said that officials should refer to me only proposals or representations from a lead association in a sector.

Mr. Page: I thank my right hon. Friend for that positive response. Does he agree that, without one umbrella lead

trade association in a sector, the Government would receive only a host of confused and muddled messages? That would waste the time of officials and Ministers getting those diverse messages and, worst of all, those trade associations would be doing a disservice to their members by not putting their views coherently to the Government.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has taken great interest in this important subject and I agree with him. There are too many trade associations. Many are too small and under-resourced. If they are to represent their members effectively to the Government and the European Commission with a wider audience, there is room for rationalisation and we in the Department of Trade and Industry are doing what we can to encourage that.

Inward Investment

Mr. Congdon: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of jobs created or safeguarded by inward investment projects during 1994.

Mr. Heseltine: According to figures notified to my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau for the financial year 1993–94, almost 30,000 new jobs have been created and some 69,000 jobs safeguarded as a result of inward investment. Figures for the financial year 1994–95 will be available in June.

Mr. Congdon: I welcome those figures. Does my right hon. Friend agree that companies choose to invest here because of the favourable economic climate that has been created for business with flexible labour markets and a positive approach to deregulation? Would not all that be put fundamentally at risk if we imposed the unnecessary burdens of the social contract on businesses in Britain?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a surge of inward investment into Britain because it is perceived that it is the best place within the European Union in which to locate both service and manufacturing activities and, I am delighted to say, an increasing number of company headquarters and research and development facilities. With the Government's policy of maintaining the maximum competitiveness within the British economy and the European Union, we can build markedly on that success.

Mr. MacShane: The President of the Board of Trade is following the Prime Minister yesterday and in Question Time on Thursday in saying that the lack of a social chapter here has some impact on inward investment. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment quoted Daimler-Benz extensively, saying that the chairman of Daimler-Benz decided to come to the United Kingdom because there was no social chapter. [Interruption.] I have his statement in German. He does not mention the social chapter, he does not mention Europe and he does not mention England. Will the President of the Board of Trade ask the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment when citing European business men at least to be accurate and not dishonest?

Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is accurate in pointing out that European companies are flowing into every part of this country under our inward investment programme, because they


know it is the best place to be. If we want to bring that to an end, all we have to do is replace this Government with the Labour party.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Can my right hon. Friend think of anything more likely to discourage foreign investment in this country, other than a Labour victory at the next general election, than sending a signal to the world that we are decoupling from future developments in the European Union?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct to make the vital point that the inward investment we are attracting from outside the European Union and the rationalisation of investment within the EU are based on the United Kingdom's competitiveness within the European Union.

Dr. John Cunningham: As to inward investment, ABB invested £70 million in new technology at the carriage works at York—making it one of the most advanced factories of its kind in Europe. What does the President have to say to the workers and management of that plant, when it is threatened with closure because of the complete shambles caused by rail privatisation and the ending of British Rail orders from that works for new coaches? What signal does that shambles send to other companies about inward investment in the British economy?

Mr. Heseltine: I tell those people straight that, if they think that if Labour came to power it would bring to factories jobs for which there is no demand, they are even sillier to listen to the Labour party than I thought.

Mr. Jenkin: Should not my right hon. Friend be at pains to stress that if Britain opts out of the single currency, we will still be part of the single market? Would it not be better to spend £75 million on the Invest in Britain Bureau than to waste it on a speculative venture and the European Monetary Institute?

Mr. Heseltine: We are not faced with that decision. I am sure that my hon. Friend, with the wisdom that he brings to this as to all other matters, would want to be in possession of all the facts in all the circumstances before taking a decision.

British Telecom Connection Charges

Mr. Gerrard: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to British Telecom on the level of its connection charges to residential customers.

Mr. Ian Taylor: None. Regulation of BT charges is a matter for the Office of Telecommunications. Connection charges have fallen by 17 per cent. in real terms since 1984.

Mr. Gerrard: Does the Minister not accept that the cost of installing a telephone in the UK is significantly higher than in most industrialised countries? It is four times higher than in Germany, three times higher than in France and double the cost in the United States. Is that not a real deterrent, particularly for people on low incomes and pensioners, who are among those who could

benefit most from having a telephone? Is it good enough for the Minister to say that he does not care and that it is not a matter for him?

Mr. Taylor: Far from not caring, I care deeply that the UK telecommunications industry reaches every part of the country and people who were not previously able to afford a telephone. The hon. Gentleman should not assume that this country's industry comprises only BT. It is interesting that cable companies offering telephone services are attracting subscribers who could not previously afford a telephone, because cable company entry terms are more attractive. That is the effect of market competition. Incidentally, by definition, such new subscribers live in urban areas, because that is where most cable companies operate at present. This country has a good overall record of universal telephone coverage. That will continue with new technology, such as use of the radio spectrum, particularly in outlying areas.

Mr. Sumberg: If we had listened to Labour, telecommunications would still be a nationalised state monopoly and imposing high charges. Instead, there is competition and the public benefit. UK telecommunications lead the world.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Certain countries represented on the European Union Telecoms Council still do not understand that the consumer can only benefit from liberalisation of services, and that only in that way will consumer costs decline. That is why it is a triumph for this country to have persuaded the rest of the EU to liberalise all services by 1 January 1998, to the great benefit of telephone companies of all sorts in this country, which will be able to offer their services and supplies throughout the European Union.

Gas Standing Charges

Mr. Olner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will discuss the impact of standing charges on low-income customers when he next meets the Gas Consumers Council.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Olner: The Minister's previous answer was not satisfactory. Does he agree that the 75 per cent. increase in pay awarded to British Gas's chief executive, coupled with a 13 per cent. reduction in showroom staff, is a crime? Does he not think that some of the company's £1.6 billion profit should be used to reduce standing charges for people on extremely low incomes who are suffering from the value added tax increase imposed by the Government?

Mr. Taylor: What appears to be a crime is the Opposition's wilful misunderstanding of the benefits to the consumer. The consumer has benefited from a fall in prices since privatisation. That is what hon. Members who are concerned for their constituents should be talking about. There has been a 15 per cent. fall in prices, even allowing for 8 per cent. VAT. That shows that we have an extremely efficient industry. Simply to go on about management salaries is to distort the truth. It also reveals the hon. Gentleman's complete lack of understanding of what is in his constituents' interests.

Points of Order

Mr. John McFall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to bring to your attention some correspondence that I have received relating to my private Member's Bill which is due to receive a Second Reading on 3 March. The British Field Sports Society has written to say that there is insufficient time for the Bill to pass through all its parliamentary stages. The correspondence also contains a letter from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) which tells colleagues that it is not the intention to divide the House as there will be insufficient time.
It is my contention that such correspondence will militate against a full debate and votes on a closure motion and Second Reading. It may also lead to a false impression being given to hon. Members. I seek your advice, first, on the propriety of an outside body such as the British Field Sports Society daring to interfere with the rights of Members of Parliament by stating that there is insufficient time. Secondly, is it in order for the hon. Member for Wimbledon, to whom I gave notice of this point of order by putting a message on the board at 2 pm, to speak for other hon. Members in a way in which he is not entitled to do?

Madam Speaker: There seems to be nothing wrong with the course of action that has been taken. Hon. Members often receive letters giving advice or guidance on what they might like to do. As the hon. Gentleman knows, letters and correspondence do not bind anyone to anything.

Ms Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During my contribution to last night's debate on passenger service requirements under rail privatisation, I was remiss in not declaring an interest—that I am sponsored by ASLEF, the Associated

Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. May I take this opportunity to apologise unreservedly to the House for that omission?

Madam Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) asked me to thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in notifying him of the point of order and to apologise for the fact that he was unfortunately unable to be here.

Madam Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether you have seen reports today that the Secretary of State for Health was summoned to see the Lord Chancellor about the legal action that was going to be taken against her because of her Department's lack of beds for severely disturbed mentally ill patients. Has the Secretary of State announced that she intends to make a statement on this alarming state of affairs?

Madam Speaker: I have had no notification that the Secretary of State for Health is seeking to make a statement to the House, at least not today.
While I am on my feet, may I say that some right hon. and hon. Members seem to think that it is rather smart or clever to manipulate the English language when referring to other right hon. and hon. Members across the Floor of the House. I remind the House of the wise words of "Erskine May":
Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.
I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind in future interventions and that they will make use of the richness of the English language and select elegant phrases that express their meaning without causing offence to others. I know only too well from my postbag that some exchanges across the Floor of the House do not enhance it in the eyes of our electorate.

Financing of Political Parties

Mr. John Spellar: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the financing of political parties by requiring disclosure of the source of donations, by the prohibition of donations from overseas, and by the publication of accounts.
Let me make it clear at the outset that my Bill does not concern state funding of political parties; it concerns the regulation of donations and accounts. It has three main aims—to prohibit donations from foreign nationals not normally resident in this country, and from overseas companies and Governments; to ensure the recording and publication of donations above a certain limit, not tied to a particular figure but probably about £1,000; and to require political parties to publish income and expenditure accounts in the same way as companies and trade unions.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Like Maxwell's donations to the Labour party from Liechtenstein?

Mr. Spellar: I am pleased to hear that there is all-party support for that last item. In 1949, the House passed a motion requiring parties to publish accounts, but unfortunately it has not yet been activated by the Tory party.
This is the third occasion on which I have presented the Bill. It is fortunate that it falls on a day on which the Tories are having to declare redundancies because of the collapse of their domestic operations. Regrettably, on previous occasions the Bill has been blocked by Government Whips. It is extraordinary that the Conservatives should be so reticent about disclosure; that could, after all, lead people to believe that they have something to hide. Presumably such feelings also led the Prime Minister to state in the House recently that he revealed the existence of donations only when they had resulted in a vote at his party conference. That must have caused people to ask why the Conservatives become so excited about what is essentially a modest proposal, which would be regarded as normal in most democracies.
The prohibition of foreign donations, for example, has been in force for some time in the United States, with no complaints and with general approval. People find it hard to understand why the Tory party seems to be excessively dependent on large donations or loans from people who do not even have a vote in this country. Perhaps we are being unfair, and all the stories have been fabricated by ill-intentioned media; in that case, the Bill would help the Tory party by dispelling unhealthy myths that thrive in an atmosphere of secrecy.
If, for example, the Conservatives had been required to declare donations, they might have had second thoughts about accepting £400,000 or so from Asil Nadir. Think of the embarrassment that that would have saved them. If they had taken the money anyway, the report that they would have filed would have provided them with a record, enabling them to answer the receiver's questions about how much had been improperly donated. Their hapless head of administration, Mr. Judge, would not have had to admit that the records of donations had all been dumped in 1992—which was his explanation of why the Government were unable to accede to a perfectly reasonable request from the receiver.
Furthermore, by publishing proper accounts Conservative central office would be able to demonstrate to party members that they had not been funding the £300,000 estimated legal costs run up by the unfortunate Mr. Judge in his ill-advised libel action against The Guardian. That is an important point. When it was revealed that the legal bill of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) had been paid by Conservative central office, the party lost an estimated £500,000 in donations. Presumably even the dwindling hard core of Tory party members do not think that that is the reason for their wine and cheese parties and jumble sales. The party probably lost some members over that; although it is hard to tell, given the general collapse of Tory party membership—especially in the Young Conservatives, who were once the biggest youth movement in Europe but now have about the same number of members as any Trotskyist sect, and exhibit much the same behaviour. That is increasingly the nub of the problem, and it is presumably why the Conservative party is blocking any attempt to introduce transparency to its accounts.
Even the Prime Minister does not seem to be very well informed about the funding of his party. When I asked him about Tory party finances at Question Time on 19 October 1993, he said:
There are a great many secret sources and they are all cheese and wine parties up and down the country."—[Official Report, 19 October 1993; Vol. 230, c. 144.]
One would have to be a real dimwit to believe that.
The Tory party has recently admitted receiving more than £400,000 from Asil Nadir; an estimated hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pounds, from John Latsis, a Greek ship owner; money from Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka Shi; and funds from tax-evader and ex-Nissan boss Oktav Botnar.
Mr. Latsis and other ship owners and foreign business men are estimated to benefit from a tax loophole called foreign domicile tax status, estimated to cost the Exchequer £1 billion a year. That sum would have enabled the Chancellor to have been far more generous in imposing VAT on fuel, instead of trying to claw it back from all sorts of other taxpayers. That £1 billion a year is being given to very few people rather than being distributed among the population of the country. This country is one of only four in western Europe to have such an arrangement. The others are the Channel Islands, Luxembourg and Switzerland—all well-known tax havens.
If there were transparency, we would know clearly who was donating, who was benefiting and how much was being given. We would also know how the £15 million overdraft of the Conservative party is being covered. It would be extraordinary if a major bank were offering such a facility without proper security. What assets does the Tory party have and who is underwriting that huge sum? I suspect that many small business men would like the same generosity from their banks. The Royal Bank of Scotland seems to have much to answer for about overdrafts that it has given to business men.
The Bill will also deal with the amazing and increasing dependence of the Tory party on donations from individuals, corporations, foundations and—possibly—even Governments from abroad, none of whom has a vote in this country. There are persistent rumours that many of the deals that have attracted public attention for other


reasons—the Pergau darn affair, the Al Yamamah project in Saudi Arabia, the Malaysian arms deal and relationships with the Government of Brunei—all connect to donations to the Tory party.
The fundamental reason for all that is simple: the Tory party is in crisis. As it becomes increasingly unpopular, its membership is falling and aging away; as it is wiped out in local government, its local structure is withering; as it decimates industry, its traditional friends are closing their cheque books; as it loses Members of the European Parliament, its influence at European level is seen as eroding. The Government are now a narrow oligarchy, clinging to central state power, propped up by a few heavy-spending companies mainly from the City and by foreign interests. The Government are kept together only by their monopoly of patronage through honours, quangos and political favours.
The Bill corrects some of the worst abuses and ensures that the public know what is going on. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Spellar, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Mike O'Brien, Mr. David Winnick, Ms Angela Eagle, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Gordon McMaster and Mr. Chris Mullin.

FINANCING OF POLITICAL PARTIES

Mr. John Spellar accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the financing of political parties by requiring disclosure of the source of donations, by the prohibition of donations from overseas, and by the publication of accounts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 March, and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

Orders of the Day — Local Government Finance (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1995–96 (House of Commons Paper No. 140), which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.

Madam Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (Wales) 1995–96 (House of Commons Paper No. 141), which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
That the Special Grant Report (Wales) 1995 (House of Commons Paper No. 142), which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.

Mr. Redwood: The motions allow total standard spending of £2,782 million for local government in Wales in 1995–96; an increase of 3.24 per cent. and an increase well ahead of inflation. The motions represent £15.1 million more than that which I announced on 29 November 1994, as the amount includes extra money for the police following the consultation. That takes the total increase to £87 million, when compared with the equivalent spending this year. It brings the increase to £600 million—or 30 per cent.—since 1990–91 which is well ahead of inflation at 21.3 per cent. That gives the lie to some of the criticisms that were made ahead of the debate to the effect that we had cut spending or been mean. Here is another large increase for the people of Wales and the services provided by their local government.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Secretary of State has mentioned a figure of £2,782 million, and Hansard tells us that on 14 December 1994, talking about the budget for Wales, he said that £2,767 million represented an increase of 2.7 per cent. However, I have a letter here from the chief executive of Dyfed county council saying that that £2,767 million is in fact £48.9 million less than the local authority budgets for this financial year. What the Secretary of State portrays as an increase of 2.7 per cent.—rising today to 3.2 per cent.—is really a cut of 1.8 per cent. below the existing level of expenditure. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what is wrong with the chief executive's arithmetic?

Mr. Redwood: There are two ways in which the chief executive could be wrong. First, we must adjust for the change in functions. I was very careful about what I said, and if we compare like with like we see the increase that I have described. Perhaps the council's figures were not properly adjusted for the change in functions.
Secondly, as I have said, we must compare like with like. We must compare the total suggested to the House last year with the total suggested this year, or we could compare budgets with budgets. But we must not confuse the figures or we shall get a silly answer. I am comparing


like with like, and making the right adjustments for the new range of functions that local government is undertaking.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the optimism of the Secretary of State's opening statement presage an intervention, or even a subvention, for the benefit of the hard-pressed local education authority in Clwyd? The possibility of major cuts in teacher numbers and the problems facing the county in providing for special needs are causing deep concern there. Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with those issues?

Mr. Redwood: Willingly; I shall speak in detail about Clwyd's budget later. I know that concerns have been expressed, but I believe that there are easy ways in which Clwyd could find the money that I believe its schools need and deserve, and I hope that the county councillors will look more carefully and find the right answer for local people.

Mr. David Hanson: The chief executive of Clwyd county council has said that as a result of the grant figures before us Clwyd will face a cut of £8 million—about 4 per cent.—because inflation has not been included in the settlement at the proper rate. Schools and many parents in my constituency and elsewhere are appalled at the consequences of the settlement and have urged me to vote against it. What justification can the Secretary of State offer me to take back to them?

Mr. Redwood: I shall explain later where I think the money can come from to provide high-quality education in Clwyd. That is what I want, and I am sure that it is what Opposition Members want, too. Given the generosity of the settlement, the solution lies in the county's hands.
The notional amounts report adjusts this year's county figures for the creation of self-standing police authorities from 1 April 1995. I propose to use those adjusted figures to measure increases in 1995–96 for capping purposes. The counties have been consulted on those figures and agree that they are accurate.
The special grant report will enable me to pay grants totalling £19.5 million to the new unitary local authorities in Wales that will be elected on 4 May. These grants meet in full the local authority associations' estimate of the running costs of the new authorities in their shadow period. I want them to get off to a good start and I hope that, if nothing else, Opposition Members will welcome our generosity in not only meeting the bill in full but meeting it by way of grant, so that there can be no question but that the money will be there to do the job.
I have consulted the local authority associations on the formula for distributing the grants and they have endorsed it. Total standard spending of £2,782.1 million includes £315.8 million for the new police authorities and £124.4 million for community care; £156 million will be paid as police grant to authorities by the Home Secretary, which the House has already approved, and the balance of £159.8 million will be provided by standard spending assessments.
I propose to provide £2,466 million in aggregate external finance, an increase of 2.4 per cent on the 1994–95 level. This will comprise £1,718.3 million in revenue support grant, £520 million in distributable

non-domestic rates and £227.7 million in other revenue grants. It accounts for about 89 per cent. of total standard spending, compared with about 80 per cent. in the English equivalent settlement.
That means that Welsh council tax payers will continue to benefit from substantially lower levels of tax than their counterparts in England as a result of the settlement. I hope that Opposition Members will weigh that up carefully before thinking about voting against the proposal.
A new non-domestic rating list will come into force on 1 April. That shows an overall increase in rateable values for Wales of 18 per cent., reflecting the relative improvement in property values compared with London and southern England since the last valuation. That shows that the Welsh economy is doing relatively well, and that it is growing fast during a strong recovery.
The levels of rates raised from the new list must by law be the same in real terms as the rates raised in 1994–95. To counterbalance the rise in values, the poundage will fall from 44.2p to 39p next year. Some ratepayers' valuations have risen by considerably more than the compensating decline in poundage since the last valuation.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget, we have acted to limit the real rate rise in 1995–1996 to 10 per cent. for any given property and 7.5 per cent for smaller properties, usually occupied by smaller businesses. The cost of this will be met in part by phasing in rate reductions for those who gain from the revaluation and in part by a £25 million Exchequer contribution. Around 60,000 ratepayers in Wales will be assisted by the transitional arrangements.
The aim of the police funding formula is to distribute resources fairly to police authorities in Wales and England, taking account of each area's need for police services. The settlement represents an increase of over £30 million for Welsh police authorities compared with police budgets for 1994–95. It gives the new authorities a sound base for providing high-quality services in their first year. It also shows how disappointing Welsh Labour local government has been in meeting the needs of the police when it had the freedom to do so. I withdrew that freedom with great reluctance, but the decision represented by this budget is extremely popular in Wales, especially south Wales, where it gives a big boost to the police force.
I want the authorities to concentrate on appointing more constables and sergeants to patrol our streets and detect criminals. I do not wish to see the money spent on too much extra management or new offices. I look to the new police authorities to spend it wisely in line with the public's wish for effective crime control and reassurance.
I thoroughly disagree with the Labour party in its contention that £87 million more is not enough. Next year the counties will have sufficient money to pay for the teachers currently employed and, if they wish, they could recruit some more. LEA schools in Wales began this financial year with balances of £47.6 million. That was money given to schools in past years, and they still have considerable balances.
I remember an early visit which I made as Secretary of State to Clwyd to see a new development project. I was greeted by a crowd of chanting pupils from a local school, who had been permitted to do so by teachers and Labour


councillors—perhaps they had even been organised by one or two of them. They shouted that the settlement that year was too low.
When I tried to discuss the matter with the pupils, I discovered they did not know how big the budget was, how much it had gone up by, or how the county proposed to spend the money that Parliament had voted. I felt that those pupils had been manipulated by people out to play politics with their lives in a quite disgraceful way.
Imagine my interest in discovering that Clwyd LEA schools had £5.2 million in unused balances at the start of this year—hardly evidence that past settlements, which have been criticised, have been mean. If the schools spent that money next year, it would have the effect of increasing their delegated budgets by almost 5 per cent.

Mr. Martyn Jones: The Secretary of State knows that schools which manage their own budgets have to keep balances. The district auditors would be down on them like a ton of bricks if they did not. If the Secretary of State is so keen on giving money to the police because they lace cuts under the present SSA arrangement, does he not realise that Clwyd faces cuts in teacher numbers under the present SSA arrangement? Will he treat the education of children in Clwyd: in the same way as the police force in Clwyd?

Mr. Redwood: I do not propose to take powers away from Clwyd county council to decide how much should go to the schools. That is an important local democratic power. I am entitled to argue about how schools should carry out their functions when they argue that I have not given them enough money. I am about to demonstrate that there is plenty of money if the schools choose the right priorities in line with those of the electors whom some Opposition Members represent.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that in addition to the reserves that the schools in Clwyd have, the county has balances of some £6 million.

Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend is ahead of me in the argument that I am about to make to the House. The Western Mail tells me that spending the balances is not the answer. Yet it is money voted by the House for local government which has not been spent at a time when I am told that more money should be spent on education.

Mr. Ron Davies: The Secretary of State said that schools have their own accumulated budgets. I ask him a simple question. Will he confirm that the latest advice given to schools was contained in circular 294, which says:
the ability to make savings in one year and deploy them in the next (e.g. to purchase a piece of equipment) is an essential feature of schemes of local management"?
Is that the advice that he gives to schools?

Mr. Redwood: Of course schools should budget wisely. Of course they have some powers to save for the things that they most want. But when we have balances of more than £5 million, or 5 per cent. of the annual delegated schools budget, and schools tell me that they do not have enough money, I am entitled to ask why they do not spend some of that balance on the things that they say are most needed—enough teachers paid at the rate for the job.
The Labour party has run a wicked campaign to alarm school governors, parents and pupils.

Mr. Davies: I put a specific question to the Secretary of State. I am surprised that he did not answer it. The largest school in Clwyd, which has a budget of more than £2 million, has an accumulated budget of less than £40,000. That is well within acceptable levels. If the Secretary of State is so concerned about accumulated budgets in schools in Wales, why on earth has he not responded to the county authorities in Wales, which for the past 12 months have asked him to spell out his policy? The Welsh Office has promised those people for the past 12 months that the Secretary of State's guidelines will be published to explain what procedures he expects them to take. If he now criticises them, why did he not accept his responsibility 12 months ago and give schools the advice that he magically expects them to follow now?

Mr. Redwood: There is a great deal of delegated power in the system, I believe rightly so. I see that once again Opposition Members want to centralise everything. We give considerable scope to the local authorities to decide on priorities. We then give scope to the schools to decide on their priorities. I do not attack schools or local authorities unless they tell me through the elected representatives on the Opposition Benches that they do not have enough money. Then I ask where all the money has gone and whether they have some money that they could use for those priorities.
Opposition Members have been busy saying that the Government will not provide for the teachers' award in the settlement when they do not even know what the pay award is. I do not see how they can possibly judge that it cannot be afforded out of the settlement.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State admit that the balances are not transferable from one school to another? Some schools have done badly and others, admittedly, have a surplus. If the funds were held by the local education authority at county hall level, they could be distributed to where the need was greatest. The Secretary of State talked about pupils demonstrating. I have received a letter from Mr. McCarthy, the headmaster of St. Gabriel's Roman Catholic primary school in Newport, and from a host of parents expressing great concern about losing teachers from the school. What am I to say to them? Am I to say that there are surpluses in other schools in the county? That is not the answer.

Mr. Redwood: The rest of my argument will help schools that do not have large balances. The aggregate balances are large, so my point applies to quite a large number of schools within the county. There is other money, which I shall reveal in a minute, which will also help.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) for making the point about balances in schools. On local authority balances, the Secretary of State knows as well as I do that district auditors, under Labour and Conservative Governments, always advised local government to hold reasonable balances. What sort


of reasonable balances does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that Clwyd and other county councils should have? What is his definition?

Mr. Redwood: Of course there should be prudent balances; it is right that auditors discuss that with the county councils. It is for the finance specialists on the county along with their auditors to satisfy themselves about what is prudent and what is wasteful. There is a level of balance that is excessive and could be better spent on the services that are Parliament's primary intention in voting the money.

Mr. Alan Williams: The right hon. Gentleman has already accepted that there should be some balances and he has said that those balances should be prudent. How does he reconcile his present argument that he must tell the schools what to do with the Government's argument that they are leaving it to the governors and the parents to decide what to do?

Mr. Redwood: The right hon. Gentleman should not confuse the issue. I have already made it clear that, unlike Labour Members, I believe in the maximum of delegated power. We have backed that view with our actions. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Not in this settlement."] All I am saying is that if Labour Members and Labour councillors criticise the settlement because there is not enough money, I am quite within my rights to explain why I think that there is more than enough money in the settlement and to explain how very easily the teachers can be paid and can provide a good quality of education.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain, because I am a little confused and I am sure that some of my colleagues are, too, exactly what he means by the word "prudent"? Will he spell out what he means?

Mr. Redwood: I have already dealt with that point. It is a matter for the judgment of individual counties based on their budgets and their requirements, and for the auditors who obviously comment on these matters. I believe that the aggregate level of balances, both in the schools of Clwyd and in county councils around Wales, is considerably higher than is needed for a prudent balance.
I want now to make some progress with my argument—

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Redwood: I want to make a little progress with my argument and I shall then take interventions if hon. Members still think that there are problems with my analysis. I am sure that they will not think that because it is a carefully constructed analysis of the budget position that their authorities face. When we decided on the increases—

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he will not give way yet.

Mr. Redwood: When we decided on the increase in cash for local government next year, of course we took account of the need to pay teachers more. It is not some new development that has taken us by surprise. I also took

account of all other relevant points about the budgets and requirements of Welsh local government in framing the settlement. I expect education to be a high priority for county councils next year; that is what the people of Wales clearly want.
The average results in schools in Wales are still too low. They are lower than those in England, lower than those in Scotland and lower by far than those in Japan. Tests on pupils with an average age of 15 years and eight months in England and Wales have shown that only one quarter could calculate correctly the total in the decimal sum 2.6 minus 4.12 plus 6.3 minus 0.44 without a calculator.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: We shall find out how good the Secretary of State is at percentages. What is the percentage of the total budget of schools remaining in the balance?

Mr. Redwood: I have already answered that point; the hon. Gentleman was not listening. It is about 5 per cent. of the delegated schools budget. I have given the £5.2 million figure for Clwyd. I am saying that that figure is higher than it need be; it means that there is money there to help.
I go back to the point about levels of competence. I am sure that hon. Members in their more honest moments would agree that levels of competence in both English and arithmetic need to be raised as a matter of urgency in many Welsh primary schools so that secondary pupils have mastered the basics before moving on to other studies. The tables show that the schools that receive most money per pupil often produce the worst results. They warn against the idea that all that is needed is more money. What is needed is more ambition for the pupils, better teaching and more stretching assignments.

Mr. Ron Davies: The Secretary of State must understand that we expect answers to our questions because the people to whom he refers are our constituents. I must press him on what he considers to be "prudent". Does he understand that in Mid Glamorgan, for example, although there are balances, 85 per cent. of the budget is held by fewer than a quarter of the 45-plus secondary schools? Nothing in the Secretary of State's local management of schools arrangements will allow him, under the proposals that he now puts to us, to take money from the schools that have balances and give it to those running a threadbare economy. He must answer that question before he proceeds.

Mr. Redwood: I do not want to take money away from the successful schools. I simply stress than many of them have good money—

Mr. Alan Williams: Which ones are successful?

Mr. Redwood: Those that are successful at budgeting. They may also be successful at teaching and educating, and I hope that they are. I do not want to take away from them money that is there to be used for educational purposes. I shall go on to identify other money that may help schools which Opposition Members say have no balances on which to draw.
Clwyd county council spends a little over half its total budget on education. If it chose to spend an extra 1 per cent. of that budget on education and 1 per cent. less on other things, that would yield £3 million, or 3 per cent. extra on the delegated schools budgets. The ideal areas


for spending less would be council publicity, members' allowances for too many committees and working parties, and general office overheads.

Mr. Barry Jones: Has not the Secretary of State launched a mean and organised attack on Clwyd county council aimed at creating a diversion to save his skin in this matter?

Mr. Redwood: Spelling out the facts about accounted budgets is hardly a mean attack. It is the sort of analysis which Labour as well as Conservative councils should encourage in council chambers throughout Wales. The public need to know how much money is there and how it is being spent, so as to ensure that the priorities are right.
Clwyd county council also has substantial balances, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) pointed out. If it spent £2 million of those on education, that would produce another 2 per cent. for the delegated schools budgets. I hear that it may now be thinking along those lines.

Mr. David Rendel: The Secretary of State said that money could be taken from councillors' allowances and expenses. Have not the Government recently introduced new measures to allow councils to pay councillors higher expenses? Do not all parties agree that it is necessary to increase, as far as possible, allowances given to councillors to ensure that we have a higher standard of councillor, which I am sure the Secretary of State would appreciate?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman was not listening. I said that there were too many working parties and committees. That is so in the case of Liberal-Labour Berkshire council—the hon. Gentleman's council—which has massive balances that it should spend on a decent education for children in Berkshire. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening and giving me a chance to say that.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am mindful of what Madam Speaker said earlier about exchanging insults, but I wonder whether the Secretary of States lives on this planet. I have in my hand a document from Gwynedd council, which says that this is the worst revenue support grant settlement in its history with a cut of £3.346 million. Unless the Secretary of State is right on everything and Gwynedd council is wrong, he must answer that point.
A second document from Dyfed council says that it is cutting school meals and charging more for them, stopping further expansion of its community education programme and giving up responsibility for the maintenance of buildings.
The settlement is an absolute disgrace and however much the Secretary of State tries to dress it up in fancy language and stupid figures, it is still a drastic cut. He must recognise that.

Mr. Redwood: Madam Speaker, £87 million extra next year is no cut or fancy figure. It is good money which I trust the House will vote for tonight. It is money that the councils need and which I want them to spend well.
If we look at Clwyd's education budget, what is even more depressing is how little of the money that Parliament votes for local authorities in Wales gets through to

schools. In Clwyd, of a total 1994–95 schools budget of £146.5 million, only £99.6 million is given to schools for their delegated budgets. Whereas in Powys '78p in every pound of the schools budget goes to the schools to spend on what they think matters most, in Clwyd only 68p reaches the schools for teachers' salaries and other delegated items. If Clwyd matched Powys in its spending pattern for delegated spending on schools, rather than getting £99.6 million, schools would receive £114 million, which is a massive increase of 14 per cent.

Mr. Martyn Jones: The Secretary of State offered us a rather glib analysis of how much money Clwyd could save from council publicity, committee members' allowances and so on, which amounted to £1 million. I should like him to spell out in more detail how that money could be saved. I accept that Clwyd could take some money from budgets, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would also ensure that the district auditor did not look too unkindly at budget balances of between 1 and 2 per cent. The comparison with Powys is hardly fair because its SSA is much bigger than that of Clwyd. It has more money because it is an old rural county. If Clwyd received the same SSA it would not now face such problems. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will allow the council tax payers of Clwyd to make a decision to increase their council tax to a level that would ensure that teachers in Clwyd do not have to face compulsory redundancy? I am sure that the people of Clwyd would accept that. It is in his gift to do so.

Mr. Redwood: The comparison between Clwyd and Powys does not hinge on the SSA, but on how much of the schools budget gets through to schools for their delegated purposes. The comparison is entirely fair. As to the rights of the councillors and constituents of Clwyd, I want them to make the decision. I am not taking that decision from them; I am just trying to influence it. It would be wrong of councillors to make teachers redundant when there is money in the settlement to pay for them.
We must ask what Clwyd is spending the money on that it is not delegating to the schools. The most obvious item in the education budget is the £3,256,000 spent on management and administration. That amount is 13 per cent. above the level of the next highest council. Let us say that Clwyd could save £2 million from the total of £46 million that does not get through to the schools. That would represent another 2 per cent. on the delegated schools budget.
As hon. Members will be aware, I have already identified easy ways of enabling the schools of Clwyd to see their budgets boosted substantially. The county could do that next year without cutting any other county service. I have suggested a list that adds up to about £12 million. I am not saying that Clwyd needs to find all that money or that it should, but if it found a proportion of it, Clwyd could have more teachers rather than fewer and schools could make more of their own decisions about which services they need and which teachers they wish to retain and recruit.
The scope for using balances and delegating more money to schools can be reproduced across Wales, county by county.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Mid Glamorgan will draw no less than £8 million from


its balances and reserves, but that will still mean a cut of £1.5 million in the school formula budgets and, the cruellest cut of all, a £1.5 million cut in the building maintenance budget. Many schools desperately need such spending because of their age and character. Mid Glamorgan has obeyed the right hon. Gentleman's instructions and taken money from its balances, but it is still encountering difficulties, so there must be something wrong with the right hon. Gentleman's formula rather than with local government.

Mr. Redwood: I am delighted that it will use some of its balances for good purposes. It can prudently do so and I look forward to it using that money. I also hope that it will look at the other items that I set out for one county, because Mid Glamorgan may find that some of them also apply to it.
As to improving run-down schools, no one is keener than I am to see the standard of maintenance and building repairs improved in those schools that need it. That is why I have made sure that there has been a generous capital settlement for education and for local government in general.
In the current financial year counties receive credit approvals of £42.5 million for educational capital spending—up by 11.6 per cent. on the previous year. For next year I am proposing a further increase of 7 per cent. to £45.3 million. I want to see that money spent on buildings of which we can be proud for the schools of Wales and I trust that Opposition Members agree with that aim.
In suggesting that councils control their central overheads, which in some cases are large, I am asking local government to do only what central Government are already doing. I told the House on 14 December 1994 that there would be a cash and real terms reduction in Welsh Office running costs for 1995–96, and similar reductions for Welsh executive non-departmental public bodies.
The local authority associations tell me that there is little room for further significant efficiency savings. In my experience, there is always room for large organisations with multi-million pound budgets to achieve savings by innovation and improved working practice. That judgment is supported by two recent reports from the Audit Commission on pay and performance, which concluded that savings of £500 million could be achieved by local government in England and Wales.
I am providing £43 million on top of the settlement in 1995–96 through special grant and credit approvals to meet the costs of local government reorganisation. As I promised, the costs of reorganisation are not a call on this revenue settlement.
Care in the community, which is another important matter, will receive £124.4 million—an increase of £38 million, or more than 44 per cent., on the current year's figure. It is not calculated for capping purposes. I have kept the November 1993 plans for care in the community, despite the further decrease in inflation, because I regard that as crucial.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I apologise to the Secretary of State that I was not here when he started his remarks. Does he recognise that the predictions that were made, when community care was introduced, of the number

of people who would be cared for in their own homes, considerably underestimated the number of people who have made that choice? Is he satisfied that the increase that he is announcing will satisfy that increased demand?

Mr. Redwood: Yes; I think that it will. It is a generous increase. What matters is not the number of people who opt for a specific type of care but the total number of people who need care, whether it be in their home or elsewhere. I think that the plans do take more than fair cognisance of the likely growth in numbers. We want the policy to succeed; I am sure that Opposition Members do; I am sure that all sensible people in local government want it to succeed. A 44 per cent. increase in the amount of money for that purpose shows how important we believe it to be.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) always comes to Welsh debates empty-handed. In all the time that I have debated with him, he has never promised more money than I have proposed. He had his chance this winter to offer more for the police, when local communities throughout Wales said that I had suggested too little. He did not take that chance. There was no shadow money for the police from the hon. Gentleman. Today he has his chance to say how much extra the Labour party would give local government in Wales if it had to make the decision.
I know that the hon. Gentleman will duck and weave again. I notice him already beginning to duck and weave because he knows that it is true. I can presume only that he never raises the cause of Wales in shadow Cabinet meetings, for fear of being slapped down by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor. There he sits, long on criticism, devoid of ideas, bereft of even shadow money. If he cannot deliver shadow money from a shadow Cabinet, why should anyone believe that he could deliver anything for real, were he ever in a position to try to do so?
It is odd that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to intervene. I think that he knows that it is a fair criticism. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not mention Wales in the shadow Cabinet. He goes out to make the tea instead of asking whether Wales can be given a decent place in shadow Cabinet plans. I look forward to hearing the shadow budgets. I am sure that, were they ever to leak out, we would discover that there was not an extra penny, let alone an extra pound or ecu, for Wales anywhere to be seen.
Local authorities will also receive generous capital provision next year. I announced on 14 December 1994 that that would total £525.6 million, up 4.5 per cent. on this year. I expect Welsh local authorities to act responsibly in setting their budgets. I shall consider those budgets carefully, in the light of my provisional capping principles and of all the available information.
This is a good settlement for Welsh local government. It is a delight to see that it puts Opposition Members in such good humour as I tease them about their inability to come up with anything better. It gives Welsh local government an increase greater than inflation. It gives it extra resources to prepare for local government reorganisation. It could mean more teachers in the classroom if councillors want them to be there and are determined to budget sensibly. It will definitely mean more police on the streets and more care in the community.
I want local authorities in Wales to raise the sights of local communities, raising standards in schools and providing generously for elderly and disabled people. I commend the settlement to the House.

Mr. Ron Davies: If the Secretary of State had any friends, I do not think that even they would congratulate him on his performance.

Mr. Rowlands: Offer him a shadow salary.

Mr. Davies: I can hear my hon. Friend urging me to increase the shadow budget. There are no restrictions on our shadow budget; the problems begin with the restrictions that the Secretary of State is imposing on the real budget. It was interesting to note that all the detailed questions asked of the Secretary of State today have been pointedly ignored.
The thesis of the Secretary of State's argument was that unspecified schools, unnamed councillors and unquantifiable council officials had conspired together to build up unreasonable balances in Clwyd. He only managed to single out Clwyd county council and did not refer to any other counties in Wales. He suggested that the solution to the problem of local government finance in Wales could be dealt with by attacking Clwyd county council.
When the right hon. Gentleman was asked what constituted a prudent balance, he gave no answer. When he was challenged specifically on whether it was Government policy for those schools prudently to accrue balances for use in future years, he gave no answer. I cannot make the point strongly enough that those schools are following the specific advice given to them by the Government. It ill becomes the Secretary of State to criticise them for following Government policy.
Of course, Clwyd has built up balances. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) explained what had happened to Mid Glamorgan. But the Secretary of State signally failed to say what proposals he had to meet the expenditure next year if Clwyd and all the other counties in Wales used all their balances this year. We all understand, even if the Government do not, that one can sell and spend the family silver only once. That represents exactly what the Government have done—the bonanza of North sea oil, the proceeds of privatisation and all our industry have gone.
After 15 years of Tory Government, there is an increase this year equivalent to '7p in the pound on the standard rate of income tax. The right hon. Gentleman now 'wants Welsh local authorities to do precisely the same. If they get rid of the balances this year, next year they will face the prospect of either increasing rates—which he will not allow them to do because he will rate-cap them—or cutting deep into the body of public services. That is what the Government have been about. The Secretary of State's disgraceful speech demonstrates the fact as clearly as

anyone would wish that he does not care for the future of Welsh local government, which has co-operated with the Government for the past 15 years.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not an interesting commentary on what the Secretary of State said that he seemed to equate the quality of a school with the size of its balances?

Mr. Davies: I shall return to that point. However, I shall first deal with some of the generalities in the Secretary of State's statement.
It is worth looking at what the right hon. Gentleman said last year when he announced an increase of 4.2 per cent. in total standard spending. He said:
the settlement proposals are fair and will mean that good quality services can be delivered by councils throughout Wales, and that they offer enough money to avoid sacking essential staff"—[Official Report, 15 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 876.]
Those objectives could be achieved with a 4.2 per cent. increase last year. This year, the increase is 2.7 per cent. Judging the Secretary of State by his own standards and using his speech, what will the settlement mean? If 4.2 per cent. was fair, is 2.7 per cent. unfair? If 4.2 per cent. was the minimum necessary to allow councils to avoid sacking essential staff, what will be the consequences of a 2.7 per cent. increase in total standard spending? It means that essential staff will be sacked. The Secretary of State is condemned by his own arguments.

Mr. Redwood: Has not the hon. Gentleman noticed that the inflation rate has gone down?

Mr. Davies: By the Government's own estimate, the current inflation rate is 3 per cent. How can the Secretary of State expect local authorities, which will receive a real terms funding increase of 0.4 per cent., to cope with inflation of 3 per cent.?
Why will the right hon. Gentleman not tell us what the inflation figure will be for teachers' salaries? Once the Government have agreed to that inflation figure—it will be 2.5 or 3 per cent.; good luck to the teachers—the Government will have direct responsibility for it. Will the Secretary of State make complete resources available to meet the full cost of the teachers' pay award? Perhaps he will answer that question. The Secretary of State should get to his feet and give the House a proper answer.

Mr. Redwood: For about the third time: yes, of course we have taken full account of the likely teachers' pay award in the settlement. It is in the funding that we have described.

Mr. Davies: They are weasel words. When the Government say, "We have taken it into account," the House knows that they will underfund the teachers' pay award in the current year.
This is a harsh settlement by any standards. How can it be reconciled with all that we have been told over the past 12 months about the country's economic performance? The Secretary of State comments at every opportunity about how well we are doing. If we are doing so well, why will we have to sack teachers and stop caring for the elderly and the infirm in our communities? How is that a measure of economic success?
This year the effective increase in aggregate external finance support for standard spending assessments is 87.6 per cent. The Secretary of State did not mention that


because last year the figure was 88.5 per cent. If he had managed to maintain AEF at last year's level, the council tax increase this year would be 2.5 per cent. rather than the 10 per cent. which every council tax payer in Wales now expects to pay.
The Secretary of State has managed his own unique triple whammy. As a consequence of the financial settlement, we have cuts in services, tax increases and a boost to inflation. Economic success, as defined by the Tories, brings cuts in public services and tax increases. The Secretary of State knows that the funding cuts will hit the education sector hardest.
The Secretary of State and his colleagues must understand that if we are to begin to address the problems of the economic and social malaise which their policies have created, we cannot neglect the educational needs of our society. Only one strategy matters to the Government: the political strategy of achieving tax cuts before the next general election.
The Government have no economic strategy, otherwise they would not cut education standards. They have no strategy for dealing with the increasing problems of alienation and unemployment among young people, otherwise they would not cut education standards. They have no strategy for dealing with drug abuse, crime and related social problems, otherwise they would not cut education standards.
I will tell the Secretary of State what goes on in Wales because he does not know much about it. Since 1990 there has been a four-fold increase in the number of registered drug addicts. Since 1979 the number of drug offences has increased by 184 per cent. I will use Islwyn as an example—if the Minister bothers to talk to the people, they will tell him what is happening.
In Gwent police C division, which is centred on Blackwood, the number of recorded drug offences has increased from 81 in 1990 to 294 in 1993. The Secretary of State says that he is good at percentages, so he can work that one out for himself. At the same time, the force strength in C division has fallen from 259 to 253. This year the county council is being forced to cut its expenditure on education and social services in that area by £5.5 million. The Secretary of State's arguments do not hold up, even if we accept his basis for presenting the figures. For those who are responsible for local government, the reality is far worse.
I acknowledge that there has been an increase of £87.6 million in total standard spending over last year and that is welcome. But let us look at it. It includes £38.4 million transferred to fund community care. That is not new money or additional expenditure, as the Secretary of State implied; it is a straightforward transfer from a different budget. It is ring-fenced and hypothecated for a new statutory duty; it is not available for expenditure on any other sector.
There has been a £37.5 million increase for police authorities. That is welcome, but it is a belated acknowledgement by the Secretary of State that his initial proposals were inadequate. All Welsh Opposition Members went to the Home Office or the Secretary of State last year to protest about the inadequate level of funding of our police forces in Wales.
What was the response of the police forces to the initial settlement that the Secretary of State proposed in December? Barely two months ago, he tried to tell us that it was satisfactory. The North Wales police had to announce an immediate freeze on recruitment. They prophesied that in 12 months' time there would be 60 fewer police officers as a result of the Secretary of State's proposals; there would be a freeze on recruitment of special constables, the closure of smaller police stations, community projects would be cut and there would be a failure to invest in communications, which the chief constable described as possibly catastrophic.
In Dyfed Powys the police faced a 10 per cent. reduction in the number of serving officers—a reduction of 100 police officers. The chief constable's view was that policing would be decimated, with a consequent inability to protect the public.
South Wales, which this year has had the lion's share of the increase and has done relatively well under the settlement, was underfunded, settlement by settlement, in previous years by the Government and the Home Office. Even after the increase, the treasurer of the police authority comments:
with the settlement for 1995–96 we are able to look at increasing the operational strength of the force but even now we are not able to return to previous levels.
All that the Secretary of State has done to improve police funding is to ameliorate a crisis of his own making. If he now expects us to give him credit for correcting his own mistake, he will be disappointed.

Mr. Redwood: Surely the mistake was made by Labour councillors who would not support the police.

Mr. Davies: That is not true. The Secretary of State knows full well that he was asked time after time—certainly by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—whether under his budget he would give Wales the same indicative SSAs as were available for English local government and he refused.
The Secretary of State bears full responsibility for any underfunding of the South Wales police. He also knows that, whereas for one or two years the police authority received less than the SSA that he knew existed although he would not tell the public, in other years, because of how local authorities were budgeting capital expenditure, it received in excess of what was in the notional SSA.
Given that the Secretary of State is telling Clwyd to cut a few caretakers here and a few administrators there, and he is prepared to lay down to Clwyd what it should do now in response to the current crisis, why on earth did he not over the years give any indication to Mid Glamorgan, South Glamorgan, Gwent or West Glamorgan of the indicative strategies for police funding that he had in mind? Why?

Mr. Redwood: The Government always made it clear that it was the responsibility of local authorities. The money was there within the settlement and we wanted them to spend it.

Mr. Davies: It is a changed story now. In respect of Clwyd county council, the Secretary of State is prepared to look at the budget under a microscope and say item by item where the cuts should be. How can the Secretary of State say on the one hand that it is perfectly proper for


authorities in south Wales to fund the police authority according to their own priorities and it is not a matter for him even to give the indicative SSAs, and on the other hand tell Clwyd county council almost item by item how it should organise its affairs? It is completely unacceptable.

Mr. Redwood: It is entirely similar. The Government always made it clear that they disagreed with the policing priorities established by Labour councils in south Wales. If Clwyd goes ahead with some of its threats to school budgets, I shall disagree with those priorities in the same way. I have no powers to stop those concerned, but I hope that common sense will prevail.

Mr. Davies: That shows the Secretary of State's double standards. Of the 38 Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies, 27 are members of the Welsh Labour group. Twenty-seven of us wrote to the Secretary of State expressing our concern and asking to meet him to discuss the police funding crisis in Wales. I am sure that hon. Members from other Opposition parties would have joined us. Such is the right hon. Gentleman's sense of accountability and sensitivity to public opinion that he refused even to meet us. The Secretary of State has no credibility in these matters.

Mr. Redwood: rose—

Mr. Davies: I know the cheap point that the right hon. Gentleman wants to make. If he intends to refer to this side of the House, I remind him that the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for education in Wales has not even shown the courtesy of attending this debate.

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is fulfilling the engagements that I would have undertaken if this debate had not been held today. I am sure that Wales will welcome my hon. Friend, who is to present awards and to hear the views of people in north Wales. The hon. Gentleman is right to be nervous. Why are only 13 Labour Members present out of 27? Why is Labour unable ever to marshall the majority of its Members of Parliament to support the hon. Gentleman—whether in the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff or for this debate, which the hon. Gentleman says is crucial?

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman answered his own question. My hon. Friends are fulfilling other duties—as Conservative Welsh Members are doing, no doubt. Of course the hon. Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) are fulfilling other duties.

Mr. Redwood: rose

Mr. Davies: There is no need for the right hon. Gentleman to become agitated. He knows that all Members of Parliament have other responsibilities. Even if only one third of the members of the Welsh Labour group were in the Chamber, we would still outnumber Conservatives from Wales by two to one. The right hon. Gentleman should not labour the point.

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friends are entirely happy with the settlement and think that it is good news for Wales—so they do not need to be present. Only the

Opposition tell me that it is a bad settlement. Why cannot at least half of Welsh Labour group members turn up to tell me that in person?

Mr. Martyn Jones: There are 14 of us present, which is more than half.

Mr. Davies: I am sure that Hansard will record my hon. Friend's sedentary intervention.
The Secretary of State wants to divert attention from the funding question. Community care, which is hypothecated, and police expenditure together total £75.9 million, leaving an increase of more than £11.7 million—4 per cent.—for all other services. Local authorities are required to cope with inflation, which is near 3 per cent., new legislation, increasing numbers of elderly people and a massive backlog of essential repairs and maintenance to buildings, roads and bridges.
The Government have scored their most spectacular own goal in education. First, they changed the composition of governing bodies to do away with party political influence and replaced people appointed under that system with teachers, parents, business men and others from the community. The Government then changed the rules governing finance, to give greater local discretion. They altered the rules governing local education authority financial allocations, giving less discretion to central services. Next, the Government changed the rules governing central Government allocation to local government, to give greater control to central Government. They changed the rules again, to rate-cap local government and prevent it meeting local needs. At the same time, the Government established new quangos under their control, with open-ended purse strings.
After spending 15 years constructing a system that the Government wanted, the people whom they chose to run it in the way that they wanted are in open rebellion. There are hundreds if not thousands of decent, law-abiding, respectable school governors in Wales who are now being placed in an impossible position. They are being asked to take decisions to cut the services that they are in public life to protect. What sort of Government are doing that to our communities? Only a party stupid and inept enough to give us the poll tax, VAT on fuel and the Post Office fiasco could plunge our education service into such chaos.
The Secretary of State has made three fundamental mistakes with education funding. First, the settlement itself is inadequate. Secondly, no provision has been made for the continuing increase in the number of pupils in Wales. Last year, there was an increase of 7,000 and next year there will be an increase of 8,000. That is roughly the equivalent of a new, large comprehensive school for each county in Wales. The full running costs of that new comprehensive school will have to come from the existing schools budget. That is a measure of the increase in pupil numbers alone.
In addition, the Government have made wholly inadequate provision to fund the teachers' pay increase. A 0.4 per cent. increase in the standard spending assessment falls far short of the 2.9 per cent. widely trailed as the teachers' pay award. That pay award alone will cost Welsh counties £17.5 million. That money has to come from somewhere—from other services or from the education budget itself. If the money has to come from education spending, there will, as a direct consequence,


be between 500 and 600 fewer teachers in Wales next year. If there are 8,000 more students, the inevitable consequence will be larger class sizes which will, in the words of the Secretary of State for Education, "shoot up" and falling standards of education.
In typical fashion, the Secretary of State has tried to divert attention from his own inadequacies by attacking schools, teachers, governors and local authorities with the ridiculous claim that they are not spending the money allocated to them. The fact is that they are following very specifically the advice given by the Department for Education which states in its circular that balances are
an essential feature of schemes of local management".
Despite repeated requests over the past 12 months from Welsh education authorities, and despite repeated promises, none of which has been fulfilled by the Welsh Office, the Secretary of State has refused to give schools and local education authorities his advice on the question of building up balances.
One would have thought that the Secretary of State would at least acknowledge his own inadequacies and have the modesty to refrain from attacking the people who have been asking for advice for the past 12 months. In typical Tory fashion, he is now going to penalise most unfairly schools without balances for the supposed failings of schools with balances because they did not foresee that his views would apparently differ from those of the rest of the Government. He knows that he has no mechanism within local management of schools to divert the funds in these particular circumstances that he now chooses to criticise. Inevitably, the schools with the smallest balances are in the least prosperous parts of Wales and they will be hardest hit.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will not one of the consequences of what the Secretary of State has said be that outlined clearly by the Audit Commission in its document entitled "Adding up the Sums"? The governing bodies of schools will have to reduce the number of highly qualified and trained teachers and substitute less qualified and less trained younger teachers. It will be the quality of education and the quality of teaching that will suffer as a consequence.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the many inconsistencies in the system. Having established local management of schools on the basis of a desire for local accountability and decision making, how on earth can the Secretary of State now criticise schools for operating the very system that he wanted?

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to yet another consequence? The very few grant-maintained schools that exist in Wales, with their additional funding, will not be as badly hit as state schools. Could that not be portrayed as an attempt to hit state schools hardest, to persuade those that have so far resisted the call to adopt grant-maintained status to adopt that status in order to secure the funds that they need to maintain their teaching staff?

Mr. Davies: It hardly constitutes gentle persuasion, but I suppose that it is the sort of genuflection to democracy that we expect from the present Government. I have already mentioned an article in, I believe, last week's The

Times Educational Supplement about the balances held by grant-maintained schools in England. I have tabled a parliamentary question to the Secretary of State; I hope that the few schools that have been misguided enough to opt out of local authority control in Wales will be given an honest answer. Certainly, according to published figures, grant-maintained schools have carry-over budgets far in excess of those of locally managed schools.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I will, but I am anxious to finish my speech. This is the last intervention that I will take.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Is it not inevitable that grant-maintained schools will have larger surpluses? They receive 100 per cent. of the money due to them, while schools in Clwyd receive only 68p in the pound.

Mr. Davies: Grant-maintained schools are in a better position to build up carry-over surpluses because they receive more money than locally managed schools. As a former Minister of State in the Welsh Office, the right hon. Gentleman knows the consequences of that very well. When he presided over the Welsh education budget, once grant maintained schools had been established he top-sliced the budget to try to bribe Welsh schools to become grant-maintained. It was plain that, if they did so, they would have a direct relative advantage over schools that remained under local education authority control. That was a specific attempt to destroy the idea of a planned comprehensive education system. Unfortunately, at every opportunity, the people of Wales have overwhelmingly shown that they do not want a different system.
Let me give the Secretary of State an example of the impact that his policy is having. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) referred to the district auditor. Let me refer the Secretary of State to the Office for Standards in Education, which was set up to monitor standards. It has recommended, time after time, that local schools use the roll-over facility to meet the needs that have been identified.
One of the schools that the Secretary of State chooses to criticise happens to be in my constituency. I know it well; it has the distinction.of having taught Neil Kinnock, my former colleague in Islwyn. Lewis boys' school in Pengam has a balance amounting to just over 3 per cent. of its budget. It desperately needs investment in buildings and facilities: some of its buildings date from 1860. Following Ofsted's recommendations in a report on the school, it is trying to purchase new information technology equipment. The school has to find £20,000 and it cannot get it from the local education authority. One of the consequences of the settlement is that schools like that across the length and breadth of Wales will not be able to secure the minimum finance necessary to equip themselves with new information technology.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State for Education in England has announced in the past couple of weeks that she is making available money for IT in English schools and that the Welsh Office has refused to introduce a similar scheme for Wales?

Mr. Davies: That point invites me to use one of my favourite arguments in favour of devolution, which will,


no doubt, give my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) palpitations. Enormous powers have been devolved to the Secretary of State for Wales. He can choose the ways in which the education policy and the funding of education schemes in Wales differ from those in England. So there is already devolution of power in Wales—to the Secretary of State for Wales. I very much look forward to the day—I shall invite my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West at some time to warmly endorse our view—when power will not be devolved to the Secretary of State for Wales, who represents an English constituency, but to the people of Wales and their elected representatives.
As a result of the settlement, schools such as the Lewis school in Pengam will be forced to try to second-guess the Secretary of State. He will not tell us what he has in mind. Schools will have to wonder what is a reasonable budget, what is a prudent percentage to carry over and how much their funds should be. If they try to build balances for a new science laboratory or new IT or, perhaps, to build a new sports hall, they will not know whether the Secretary of State will change the rules and penalise them the following year. His settlement has implied that intention this year.
It is typical that, under the Secretary of State's uncaring regimes which lack understanding, schools such as the Lewis school will be penalised. Once again, this centralising, dogmatic, intolerant Government have sought to remove local discretion, to reduce the powers of local government and to undermine accountability to the people. They have got it hopelessly wrong; the settlement is hopelessly wrong and that is why my colleagues and I will be voting against the motions tonight.

Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the settlement was good, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) called it a harsh settlement and, in the spirit of compromise, I shall call it a fairly tight but, nevertheless, manageable settlement, as has been almost every settlement that I have known.
There are certainly very good points to the settlement. The increase of 3.2 per cent. in total standard spending is welcome. Indeed, my understanding is that no less than 89 per cent. of it is being met by central Government. Some specific features have caused concern, but have been resolved. The police settlement has been greatly welcomed by the police force in Wales and substantial provision has been made for local government reorganisation. I also welcome the 4.5 per cent. increase in capital grants and credit approvals, which, I am sure, will be put to good use by Welsh local authorities.
The point has not been made that this year is the last for the Welsh counties and that some, if not all, have substantial balances. My county of Gwynedd, for example, has balances amounting to £8.6 million and it has already taken the view that it could reduce them to £6 million and possibly less to cushion the effect of the settlement. Other counties must be in the same position. If the Liverpool Daily Post is correct, Clwyd has already

decided that it may devote at least £1 million of its £6 million in balances to strengthening services following the settlement.

Mr. Llwyd: In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks which, because of the tone in which they were delivered, I heard some of my colleagues describing as almost rebellious, may I ask him whether he received the briefing from the chief executive of Gwynedd county council, which says clearly that there will be a cut of £3.346 million? Is he saying that that man is misleading Members of Parliament about Gwynedd?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for leading me on to exactly what I was going to say next. When the counties talk about reductions they mean not that the 1995–96 settlement is less than the 1994–95 settlement but that the 1995–96 settlement is less than their actual budgets for 1994–95. That is precisely what the treasurer of Gwynedd said in the report to his finance committee, of which I do indeed have a copy. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the bottom of page 1 he will see that like is not being compared with like. As I said, the 1995–96 settlement is being compared with the council's actual budget for 1994–95, which was indeed higher than this year's settlement.
Of course the 1995–96 actual budget is also likely to be higher. Indeed, the Government permit counties to spend an average of about 3.3 per cent. over and above their SSAs before the cap comes into effect. The report by Gwynedd county treasurer shows that there is an anticipated increase in the budget for almost every individual service. In education, for example, the budget for this year is £86.894 million and the base for next year it is £89.21 million.
Of course there is concern about the level of the teachers' pay settlement and about inflation, and there is clearly a need for contingency reserves of about £2.9 million to cover those, but, as my right hon. Friend said, it is not only the counties that have balances. We heard yesterday that about £700 million was available in reserves in school budgets in England, and now we hear that Welsh schools too have about £47.6 million available in their reserves.
The Opposition have made a great deal of what my right hon. Friend said, but surely he would reply—I certainly would—that schools cannot have substantial reserves yet at the same time complain of an inadequate settlement. They can use their reserves. Of course there are schools that may not have reserves, in which case there is nothing to stop the county education authority coming to their assistance with its balances. I am sure that in practice that is what will happen.
There is no excuse for a drastic reduction in teacher numbers or in staffing generally in Gwynedd. Work has been done on some options, such as a 1 per cent. cut in the staffing budget, with a 1 per cent. cut in the total budget and up to a further 2 per cent. I dare say that those exercises are good for the souls of those concerned. The Audit Commission would approve, and I am sure that we should do so, but, given the balances available, it does not seem that drastic cuts will be necessary.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly should bear in mind the fact that expenditure per primary pupil in Wales is now 52.6 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1979–80. Expenditure per secondary school pupil is 64.2


per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979–80. Considerable expenditure has been made on education in Wales, with real terms increases.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Does not most education expenditure go on capital equipment, teaching or buildings? Throughout the period to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, the number of pupils declined enormously and a great percentage of the money was required simply to keep empty classrooms and school buildings. The Government's policies of opting out have made it difficult for local authorities to do anything about surplus places. Does not that artificially inflate the figure that is allegedly spent per child?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is protesting too much and is seeking a complex explanation for the fact that expenditure per pupil now is much higher. If he had visited classrooms, he would know that that increase has shown up in the facilities available.
There are a substantial number of surplus places in schools in Wales, and whatever policy is pursued it must certainly be adhered to. Some grant-maintained schools might otherwise have been closed by local authorities, but there is still a duty on local authorities, which they must not shy away from, to get rid of surplus places. I do not think that the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) can use the policy on grant-maintained schools as an excuse for not getting rid of surplus places. I do not want to pursue this argument too far as the amount of time available is limited.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been able to increase the moneys available for community care, which was something of a pinch point. Gwynedd's social services budget will increase from £29.328 million this year to £33.5 million next year. That, and total expenditure of £124.4 million in Wales, will be widely welcomed in Gwynedd.
The failure of my borough of Aberconwy to secure a significant allocation under the strategic development scheme has caused it disappointment, which I share. I have been dealing with the matter in correspondence with my right hon. Friend, and I am grateful for the letter that I received today in which he emphasised the strength of competition for SDS funds and stated that only seven out of 35 projects succeeded in attracting funds.
The borough welcomes the increased funding for housing renovation grants, which are much needed in the renewal area of Penmaenmawr. Aberconwy has a surplus on its collection fund, which will help to keep down the council tax, but the gross cost of rent allowances will have risen by about 300 per cent. between 1991–92 and 1995–96.
The borough's director of financial services therefore suggests that the rent allowance element be excluded from the capping calculations, because councils have little or no control over it. Rent allowances are in the hands of landlords and rent officers, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will look into the matter.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Caerphilly, although I am bound to say that his speech sounded rather like an old, clattering alarm clock. He failed to wake us up for the simple reason that he did not answer the key questions: would the Labour party, if it were in

government, increase grant and, if so, by how much, or would it remove the cap and allow the council tax to rise? Those are the alternatives open to the hon. Member for Caerphilly. He has not told us which he would choose, and neither has he said by how much he would allow the council tax to rise.
More surprisingly, I heard no mention of the Opposition's local government policy document, "Renewing Democracy, Rebuilding Communities". I have used the title of the document to oblige the Opposition and to ensure that it is placed on the record. The Opposition's policies are explained in the document: to abolish the cap and compulsory competitive tendering, to return business rates to local authority control and to release capital receipts and payments to councillors. Are those Labour policies or not? If they are, why on earth did we not hear about them?

Mr. Ron Davies: Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman that it is a consultative document. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Unlike some of his hon. Friends, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the virtues of consultation. I look forward to him writing to me with his detailed observations on that consultation document.

Sir Wyn Roberts: If I can help the Labour party by contributing my views, I may do so—if I thought that it would have any effect.
I am bound to say that the tone of the document suggests that the consultation is not very real. The precise propositions to abolish the cap and so on are likely to be adopted by the Labour party, which will lead to a return to the old, profligate, bureaucratic and inefficient local authorities of the 1970s and 1980s.
I think that Mr. McKinstry was right, and in case any hon. Member does not know what that former Labour councillor and adviser wrote in The Spectator on 21 January, here it is:
In my job with the Labour party at Westminster … I could see only too clearly that the spirit of Labour in local government—that mean minded cocktail of political correctness, bureaucracy, intervention and abuse of public money—pervaded the whole party".
I am disappointed that we did not hear what the Opposition would do if they were in government. Until we know rather more positively what they will do, we shall continue to be disappointed.
I began by saying that this was a fairly tight settlement but a manageable one. I shall finish by joining my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in describing it as a good settlement.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: This is the first opportunity that I have had to follow the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) since he returned to the Back Benches. It would be wrong if we did not put on the record the great kindness and courtesy that he showed to those of us who came to see him on various issues and problems. It was always appreciated. We welcome him back to the Back Benches. I hope that his successor will learn the right hon. Gentleman's courtesy, style and kindness as quickly as possible. Our personal relationships with the right hon. Gentleman have certainly been beneficial.
For a moment at the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech it sounded, on the Richter scale of language that we have come to expect from him, as if he was going to be slightly rebellious. He managed not to be. I saw slight signs of worry on the Secretary of State's face. If the right hon. Member for Conwy starts to rumble him, the Secretary of State really has to worry.
There are a number of symptoms of the late stages of a Government in decline. We saw an extraordinary set of them today. Financial decadence has been preached by the Secretary of State and, believe it or not, even by the right hon. Member for Conwy, who suggested that because county councils were to be abolished in 12 months, they ought to clear their balances out. Is that the official position of the Government?
How much does the Secretary of State think should remain in the balances of county councils in their last year? What sort of assumptions does he make in his plans for the changeover from county to unitary authority? Has he made assumptions about the amounts of money that will be transferred and how they will be transferred? I should be grateful if the Secretary of State could advise us on that. The recommendation of the right hon. Member for Conwy was that county councils should clear out their balances in their last year of office. That is a sign of a Government preparing to leave office.
Then there was the prescription of the right hon. Member for Conwy that balances should be run down to cover the costs of the failure of the Secretary of State to reach a satisfactory settlement with the Treasury.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: : I wonder why my hon. Friend is surprised. Does he recognise a parallel between the subject that we are discussing and what the Government are doing with the Welsh Development Agency? They are running down the assets of the WDA in preparation for the time when they are no longer in office. We shall then have to refund that organisation for the capital assets that it has been forced to spend.

Mr. Rowlands: I said that there were a number of symptoms of a Government on their way out. They have been manifested in the debate this afternoon. The concept of running down one's assets and balances is a striking contrast with the Thatcherite prudent housekeeping about which we had lectures for a decade and more. None the less, it is interesting to note the right hon. Gentleman's solution for local authorities which face tight financial problems such as those described by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), those referred to by Welsh Members in their representations to Ministers and those which I am sure will be described in the debate.
I know that among Conservative Members there is a feeling that local government cries wolf every year when this annual ritual takes place. That seems to be the idea. I will tell the Secretary of State the symptoms that have appeared this year which I have not seen before. I have never received so many representations from governors of schools as I have this year. Governors of schools took on the greater responsibilities placed on them by the Secretary of State and in the overwhelming majority of cases rose to the occasion. As a result, they recognise forcefully the consequences of some of the decisions that have been made by central Government. Whatever the Secretary of State may think about previous years' ritual objections and criticisms—I gather that in England criticism has reached monumental proportions when

Shropshire is up in arms—I have received more representations from governors of schools than on any other settlement.
I have never received so many letters from headmasters in the terms that I have received this year. They do not speak for the National Union of Teachers. The Secretary of State ought to distinguish between the stolid representations against which he has gained a level of immunisation and the new phenomenon this year of representations from head teachers who do not necessarily belong to a union. They may or may not belong to a union, but they have written and spoken to me in terms different from anything that I have heard before.
Head teachers feel that the system and the financial arrangements are closing in on their schools and on the type of education service that they are capable of providing. They have been told that they should spend their balances, as should the county councils, while remaining prudent. We repeatedly asked the Secretary of State during his speech to tell us what percentage was a prudent balance. Time and again, the Government have been more than willing to give the strictest possible advice on capping formulae. We need a new formula to determine what constitutes a prudent remaining balance.
The nature of the representations that I and many hon. Members have received this year compared with previous years should at least make the Secretary of State think that he might be the one who has got it wrong. Just for once, he should consider that the various representations received indicate that there is at least a genuine major doubt about the financial settlement.
We have had some comments not from the Secretary of State but from the right hon. Member for Conwy about surplus school places. In his ministerial days, the right hon. Gentleman used to lecture us about surplus school places. I do not know whether he has gone to look for surplus places in his constituency or campaigned in his constituency to close down school places. Perhaps as a new Back Bencher he will now suddenly find that when one talks about surplus school places one is talking about schools that are cherished and loved by parents and their young children.
It is easy to talk about surplus school places. The right hon. Gentleman should visit Bedlinog and see the concept of surplus school places in practice. There is a small nursery school and primary school at the top of a hill and another school right down at the bottom. Both schools are loved by the community, by the parents and by the pupils. When people say, "Let us remove X thousand school places from the system," they really mean that schools in villages should be closed down, creating in a village already suffering from dereliction—a pit may have been closed, for instance—yet more dereliction. The last school that was closed lay derelict and empty for years. Closing schools to deal with surplus places would create more dereliction in small communities such as Bedlinog. I am sorry, but I will not advocate that.
The county council made a proposal as part and parcel of its attempt to balance the books to close schools in Pentrebach and Bedlinog. There was an immediate, natural and full reaction by the community to the idea of its schools being closed. It is easy to talk vaguely about surplus places, but in fact they represent much-loved schools.
I will not support the closure of school surplus places in Bedlinog. If there was a Bedlinog in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Conwy, he would not support the closure of the school. We heard quick and easy words from the English Secretary of State for Education yesterday. I should like to see her going round doing away with surplus school places.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) was right. One of the other curious consequences of the Government's reforms is that it is more difficult for a county education authority to plan and reorganise its education system in the way that the Secretary of State supports. If a school is threatened with closure, the automatic consequence is that that school will seek grant-maintained status. Will the Secretary of State for Wales support the closure of schools by the county education authority or will he be tempted politically to say, "At last I have an application for grant-maintained status before me, and I do not have many: I have tried everything under the sun—I have made schools have recounts and treble recounts to try to get grant-maintained schools off the ground, but for some reason they do not seem to get popular support from staff, teachers and parents."? If the Secretary of State can persuade the county education authority to threaten to close some schools, he can then come as a saviour and have a brand new collection of grant-maintained schools. If that is the right hon. Gentleman's cynical ploy, he should admit it. If it is not, he should agree that his policies have made it infinitely more difficult for there to be planned management of the development of education within any county.

Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in view of the enormous popularity of grant-maintained schools with the children of shadow spokespeople, to have enough places for the rest of the people who want to go to such schools we need to have more of them?

Mr. Rowlands: I have never indulged in the politics of personality in any shape or form and I will not lower my tone and my contribution to the right hon. Gentleman's level. We are talking of schools in our communities that have no wish to become grant maintained. The only possibility of an application for grant-maintained status has been when there has been a threat of closure, after which the Secretary of State has come forward as a saviour. Is that the thinking behind some of the proposals? If it is, it is a cynical ploy and we are right to reject it.
It is not a matter of just hanging on to the education that we have. We desperately need new investment in our schools. The county of Mid Glamorgan has obeyed the exhortation of the right hon. Member for Conwy and taken £8 million out of the balances to cover some of the £12 million deficit. Despite raiding £8 million from its surpluses, the county has had to make two cuts. It cut £1.5 million from the schools formula budget. I do not present that as a draconian cut, but I believe that it is damaging the local management of schools. The one Government reform that I have strongly supported is LMS, which has been a success story. Headmasters, headmistresses and staff have taken to the concept of LMS and have managed to make it work. It is sad that as a consequence of this financial arrangement counties may have to put pressure

on school formula budgets, as Mid Glamorgan has attempted to do, while desperately trying to avoid the worst impact.
The other cruel cut in Mid Glamorgan is a cut of £1.5 million in the centrally controlled building maintenance budget. The Secretary of State and other Conservative Members frequently portray the money held back at county level as being used to finance a bloated bureaucracy. That is a standard accusation. If it is true, the matter should be looked at—I accept that—but when the right hon. Gentleman makes such sweeping statements he should look more closely at what has been kept back centrally.
I give the Secretary of State one example. In my area—1 do not know whether this is the case in other areas—many schools do not want to take on the responsibility of financing school transport. The county has offered to transfer that responsibility, but most of the local schools have said that they do not want to take on the headaches and administrative costs of school transport. Parents are very worried about how their children get to and from school. There is an understanding between most schools in the county and Mid Glamorgan county council that that area of expenditure should not be transferred.
Another responsibility is major external repairs to buildings. It is not that the county council is in some wicked way holding back money from the local schools: on the whole, schools have wanted responsibility for big external repairs to remain at county level. There has been a tragic cut of £1.5 million in Mid Glamorgan. I come back to my Bedlinog school. Because of the age of the building, the external wall of that much-loved school, which is strongly supported by parents, teachers and children, is in desperate need of substantial repair. The same point could also apply to Vaynor and Penederyn high school.
This expenditure is vital to schools that are old fashioned, but which have many years of life left in them if investment in repairs and maintenance is made now. There is no reason to think that an old building is dead and must be knocked down. As I have said, that creates a form of dereliction. I am afraid, however, that as a result of this financial settlement, much essential building maintenance may be postponed. The postponement of such investment has disastrous consequences on the whole fabric of some of the old but characterful schools in our community. I hope that the Secretary of State will think twice when he makes sweeping allegations about the counties' centrally held funds.
We have missed a trick. We should have asked the Secretary of State to come to the Mid Glamorgan orchestral concert which is held every January. Perhaps we shall get him to come to the last one, next January, in St. David's hall. There are some 2,500 parents present, so children have the chance to play before an audience as big as the audiences for Shirley Bassey and Tom Jones. The hall is packed out and the places could be sold all over again. It is a tremendous and wonderful success story of the past 15 years.
One of the success stories of the time during which I have represented the constituency has been the growth of orchestral music in Mid Glamorgan. We were always able to sing and we always had choirs, but there was a strange absence of orchestral tradition in our community. In Merthyr, we have a youth orchestra of 160 youngsters who practise every Friday evening between 4.30 pm and


6 pm. My daughter and son belonged to that orchestra and never missed a rehearsal on a Friday night; they would then go out for the night. They would go to the rehearsals with 'flu, no matter how ill they were. We now have a magnificent county orchestra.
With the new unitary policy, we must be careful that we do not destroy these collective arrangements. The orchestra is funded by the county. Its success depends on the centre at Ogmore, where the children go for five or six days. That visit is paid for by money held centrally. It is not bureaucratic money, but money held centrally and used to make a county orchestra from the smaller building bricks of the Merthyr, Bridgend, Rhymney and Pontypridd orchestras. The Secretary of State makes sweeping statements about centrally held funds. Some of those centrally held funds support the activities that I have described, which could be in danger as a result of a poor financial settlement and, unless we are careful, local government reorganisation.
We should not just be trying to hang on. An area in which we should be spending money is nursery provision. Curiously, as a result of being an old county borough, Merthyr has considerable nursery provision. One of the historic successes of this old county borough is that it developed nursery education fairly comprehensively. As the borough's boundaries are now rather different, there are areas, including areas in the Rhymney part of my constituency, which have no nursery provision. We have the nonsensical position where Abertysswg has no nursery provision but lower Rhyrnney has full nursery cover and upper Rhymney has no formal nursery education.
What has happened to all the Government's plans for nursery education? Where is the great initiative that was supposed to come from the Prime Minister down for the development of nursery education? Where is the Secretary of State's nursery provision? And where, in this financial settlement, is the extra money needed to fill the gaps in nursery education in the communities that I represent?
When I say nursery education, I mean education. I do not believe in too much play. I started school at the age of three and learned to read at that age. Like many others of my generation, I believe that the learning process opens up the real world for children, so I favour old-fashioned nursery education. I should like to see the gaps in nursery provision in Wales filled. I hope that filling those gaps will be one of the missions of the new county boroughs of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. I feel that I am spitting into the wind when I write to county education directors and ask why they make no provision in next year's budget for filling those gaps in education and they turn round and say that they are just about hanging on to the nursery provision that they have now.
Before the Secretary of State decides that the proposals are fair, generous and wonderful, he should realise the pressures on the ground in what we all agree is one of the most vital services for the future—our education service.

Mr. David Rendel: I am delighted to have a chance to participate in this debate, not least because I listened to the Secretary of State's announcement on 14 December, which turned out to be some sort of Budget for Wales, when the bad news for local government finance in Wales was first revealed. I had hoped that the battering he had on that occasion would have lent him

some strength in Cabinet discussions and given him a chance to return with better proposals today. Sadly, my hopes have been dashed in that regard.
My hopes were raised again when we debated the local government settlement for England; I had hoped that the Secretary of State would have taken the warning that the country felt that the amount of Government money going towards local government resources was inadequate. Sadly, that, too, seems to have passed him by, as has the rumpus that erupted recently between school governors and parents who are trying to get their children educated in our schools. They feel extremely sore about the effect of this Government's actions on the education system, not only in England but in Wales. I am sorry that the Secretary of State has chosen to take no notice of what has happened in this Chamber or outside it since he made his announcement on 14 December last year.
Unfortunately, the settlement means that people, particularly teachers, are likely to be thrown on the scrap heap. In effect, therefore, the settlement will waste resources, be inadequate for Wales's needs and probably cause a reduction in local government services in Wales.
I shall concentrate on education, because, not surprisingly, it has been a major subject of debate today, not least because it plays such a major part in local authority finances. Wales has a particular problem with the education system because of the sparsity of population in its rural areas. We are all aware that sparsity of population is not yet fully taken into account in the formulae that the Government use to decide on standard spending assessments and grants to local authorities. I hope that the Government will face that problem before we reach this occasion next year, because it needs to be dealt with not only in Wales but throughout the country.
I return to the point made earlier about school closures. In sparsely populated areas, the closure of a school, even if there are empty places, presents particular difficulties. The Government have not yet fully understood that point, so it needs to be made again. School closures in sparsely populated areas present financial difficulties when the nearest school is some distance away. Social difficulties arise when children's education is disrupted and family arrangements are also disrupted as parents find that they must take their children to a different school. They also have financial consequences for the community as a whole.
It is easy for the Government to think purely in terms of the cost of education to local government, but the cost of educating a child includes the cost of getting that child to and from school, not only for daytime work but for extra-mural activities. It is important for the Government to recognise that a saving for local government in terms of direct funding of a school may be counterbalanced—even overturned—by the extra costs to the community as a whole of moving children to a different school some distance from where they live.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Another factor that must be borne in mind is the quality of education that children receive. When numbers run very low, the quality of education suffers because it is impossible to maintain an adequate supply of teachers.

Mr. Rendel: It is interesting that that argument is often advanced by Conservative Members, many of whom pay large sums of money to ensure that their children are educated in small classes. The suggestion that the quality


of education necessarily worsens when school sizes go down is not valid. It has certainly never been proved. In Powys, for example, attempts have been made to increase school sizes to about 1,000 pupils. Those attempts have not proved successful and some of the best-quality education is given in schools with only about 500 pupils.
The problem of nursery education was rightly discussed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). It is a significant factor in terms of education in Wales. As we know, it presents problems throughout our nation but particularly in Wales, where clear gaps exist in nursery provision, especially in the state sector. We should all seek to fill those gaps. I admit that there are some good voluntary and charity nursery schools that are well worth their place in the education system and I hope that the Government will see their way to encourage such schools. For example, the Malldwyn family centre has proved highly successful; if the Government could copy such schools, it would be well worth while. Such nursery schools allow children to get a decent education while allowing parents to live their lives as they wish. That cannot happen in parts of Wales with an absence of nursery provision.
Care in the community is a major and growing part of local government financing, so it is right that the Government now see the need to put more money into it. Many of us have believed for some time that the care in the community policy is right in principle, but we have seen what a shambles has been made of it in practice.
The money that is provided for care in the community always has to catch up with requirements a year or two late. Any hope that the Government might have that the extra money put into care in the community this year means that there will be a real increase in spending is damned by the obvious fact that that money is needed simply to plug the holes in the care in the community programme that have become evident in the past few years. The claim that so much more is now provided for Wales as a result of the Government's settlement must be countered with the contrary claim that the settlement merely represents a catching-up exercise.
The transitional costs of introducing care in the community are not being met. The most serious problem relates to the most severely handicapped adults. An attempt has been made to shut many of the older institutions that used to care for those people. That has caused enormous anguish to those who will be forced to care for them in the community without adequate resources. If one listens to the parents of those who have reached adulthood, but are so severely handicapped that they cannot properly care for themselves, one is immediately aware of the difficulties that they face in looking after their adult children in the community. One must therefore accept that the Government still have a long way to go before they can claim that they have properly funded their care in the community policy in Wales.
A particular problem for Wales this year is that it is rapidly moving towards the election of the new shadow authorities for the new unitary authorities. This year's settlement must obviously provide for the costs of those shadow authorities and, happily, to a large extent it does. It is also setting the trend for the future of those authorities, because those authorities have been given a

guideline as to how they should plan for local authority expenditure once they become fully fledged authorities in their own right. It is sad that they will have to plan for a base of spending well below the real needs of the people of Wales. It is sad that, in effect, they will have to plan for cuts in services well below the level of need.
The settlement is a sad reflection of the Government's lack of care for Wales. It shows what happens when the man in charge is more interested in bribing the voters of south-east and southern England with tax cuts than in looking after the real needs of, and providing services to, the Welsh people. Wales deserves better.

Mr. David Hanson: The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) mentioned the sparsity of the population in Wales, but perhaps he should have referred to the sparsity of Tory speakers in the debate. It seems that only the Opposition are interested in the settlement and its effect on Wales. The Opposition have made a healthy contribution to the debate and we will continue to do so during the remainder of it.
I have been driven to speak by the scurrilous attack that the Secretary of State for Wales—let us remember that he is the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—made on my county of Clwyd and the effect that that settlement will have on it. I should also like to respond to the Secretary of State's interpretation as to what Clwyd should do about that settlement. I have been in the House for just three years, but I was struck by that vitriolic attack on Clwyd. Perhaps it was meant to boost the right hon. Gentleman's virility on the near empty Conservative Benches, but I am sure that it failed in that objective.
Apart from that attack on my county council, the Secretary of State for Wales expressed his strong concerns about the tactics used by my constituents—the schoolchildren of Maes Garmon in Mold. Last year, they had the temerity to go to a meeting held by the Secretary of State in north Clwyd to protest about the effects of the spending assessment and grant allocation on local education authority spending. The right hon. Gentleman described their actions as politically motivated and he implied that, by putting across their strength of feeling, they were almost deranged. As for their political motivation, I should tell the right hon. Gentleman that those schoolchildren came to my surgery to lobby their Labour Member of Parliament, just as they lobbied Labour councillors. They felt so impassioned about the effects of any cuts in the education budget on their school and its teachers that they felt that they had to lobby the Secretary of State for Wales. What was his response? It is not apparently part of Tory party democracy of the late 20th century that people should be able to lobby the Secretary of State about the effects of spending cuts on their schools.
I should like the Minister and the Secretary of State to tell me how many schools in Clwyd they have visited in the past year. In the past year, how often have they expressed their concerns about education to local councillors? How often have they written to Clwyd Members drawing their attention to the concerns that were expressed by the Secretary of State in the Chamber this afternoon? On all three counts, the answer is that they have taken such action on very few occasions. I certainly


never received a letter from the Secretary of State expressing concern about the level of balances in Clwyd. The Minister might like to respond on that point.
The blunt fact is that the settlement is a very difficult one for local schools, the local education authorities and all local government services in Clwyd. The Secretary of State has argued that Clwyd should consider its management costs and be prudent with its balances: apparently, it should consider reducing its overall expenditure so that it is more in line with the expectations expressed in central Government diktats from the right hon. Member for Wokingham.
The Secretary of State offered no suggestion on the level of balances that he wants Clwyd county council to set. He mentioned £5.5 million as the current balance; the county council's budget this year is £271 million. Is £5.5 million a prudent balance on that level of expenditure? Although some money may be taken out of the balances—I am sure that the county council will do that as a result of the settlement—does £5.5 million represent a prudent balance? What is a prudent balance? Perhaps the Minister will tell us.
Is it prudent for Clwyd county council, in its final year of existence, to plunder its balances so that, next year, the new authorities of Flintshire, Denbighshire and Wrexham have to go back to the Secretary of State and say that they have no inheritance from the former authority? They will tell him that no balances were passed on to them and that they are therefore in a difficult position.
We have heard many Members of both Houses talk about selling the family silver. If we spend that family silver as a short-term measure to shore up Clwyd county council and to overcome its current problems, when it has only a £5.5 million balance from £271 million expenditure, what will happen next year? What will happen to Flintshire, Denbighshire and Wrexham. when the undoubted central aim of Government policy is to reduce public spending? What will happen when, next year, the Government reduce the settlement still further and impose a stricter cap?

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: It will be a generous settlement next year because it will be election year.

Mr. Hanson: I hope that my hon. Friend is right because my constituents deserve a better settlement than that offered today.
Clwyd county council has made it clear that, this year, as a result of the settlement, it will have to make cuts of £8 million in the services it provides centrally—a cut of approximately 4 per cent.—if it is to keep within the Government's set capping limit. I take my council's word on that, because it has examined the issue properly.
My authority was not elected to make cuts of £8 million in services and it has no intention of doing so. It has no mandate to do that, because I remind the Minister that 32 of the 66 members of that authority are Labour and only six represent the Tory party. Four out of five Clwyd Members of Parliament are Labour Members and none of us was elected on a mandate to make cuts of £8 million.

Mr. Jones: Where is the Tory Member for Clwyd?

Mr. Hanson: The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), the Under-Secretary of State, is out on duty today, when he should be in the Chamber to answer for the Government's policies. This year, Clwyd

county council, my local county council, will be confronted by an £8 million cut in expenditure. That money cannot be made up simply by prudent management. It cannot be made up simply by raiding the balances and selling the family silver for future years. It must be made up—unless there is an increase in the cap or, even better, perhaps an abolition of the cap or an increase in grant—by direct cuts in services in my county.
Those cuts will fall, by and large, on the education committee, because the education committee makes up most of the cost of Clwyd county council's expenditure. The county council has already considered making large cuts and has cut the central non-schools budget; nevertheless, it must make £3.5 million of proposed cuts, which in my county means the loss of nearly 300 teachers. Cuts in the non-schools budget have been made. Those cuts are now falling on the delegated school budgets, as governors are realising.
As my hon. Friends said, the reaction to those cuts is not an uprising of politically motivated people. I have received hundreds of letters from worried parents who do not blame the county council. They are streetwise parents. They know where the responsibility lies and they all, individually and collectively, have said to me, "Please go to the Welsh Office and ask it to review the grant, or, at the very least, we are willing, as ratepayers in Clwyd. to pay more on our local council tax by a higher cap to allow us to spend money in investing in our children's future."
As recently as last night, I presented a petition to the House on behalf of a school in Carmel in my constituency, signed by 2,000 parents who specifically asked for a review of the grant and the rate cap. I have received 200 letters from parents from one school in Northop Hall in my constituency. They are not politically motivated by unions. They are genuine parents who send their children to Clwyd schools—as I do—and whose children need investment in the future. Those parents want a proper settlement that reflects their aspirations, yet my county is confronted with a cut of £8 million, which will translate into £3.5 million in the education budget.
Clwyd county council social services have reviewed their budget recently because of the settlement and, as a result, must plan cuts of £1.4 million in a budget that is already unable to sustain the demand, statutory and real, that hits it. They are considering "rationing" services or charging for them, which would have a significant impact on the people in our community, whom I represent, to whom we try to deliver top-quality services. It will almost inevitably hit the most disadvantaged people in our community with the most difficult problems, who need the support of the county council. It makes any idea of a comprehensive, co-ordinated approach to community care a pipe dream, because that reduction in funding will hit hard the county council's ability to deliver locally based services.
The highways committee has considered services and has already identified £400,000 of cuts in the local maintenance budget for roads in Clwyd. I drive on roads in Clwyd continually and I can tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that work certainly needs to be done, and that cut will really have an impact on our local services.
In answer to the Secretary of State, of course Clwyd county council has considered, and will continue to consider, its central core services—the services provided at shire hall in Mold in my constituency. The county council has already considered about £400,000 worth of


savings in central departments, and I am sure that it will consider further. No Labour authority is about inefficiency. If there are genuine inefficiencies, I hope that the Secretary of State will write to me and tell me about them, so that I can write to the county council and ask it to review them. Let him put it on the record today. When the Minister replies, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let him tell the House, and tell me as the local Member of Parliament, the savings that Clwyd county council can make. If he is to go down the road of considering budgets and determining what is waste and what is not, let him tell Members of Parliament who represent Clwyd what should be cut from the budget to make the savings and compensate for the loss in grant that will confront us. I look forward to hearing his response to those questions.
All that is from a Government who, while the settlement continues, continue to plough money into grant-maintained schools throughout Wales—enormous amounts of capital spending—and recently announced a £20 million good schools initiative. In my opinion, the £20 million would be far better spent by local authorities in Wales rather than in response to a central diktat of what is a good school from the Secretary of State for Wales.
On the funding of schools, perhaps the Minister will tell us why the small schools initiative of England does not translate to Wales, and why small schools do not receive similar financial support to that which such schools receive in England.
My local authority would wish many steps to be taken today. I shall therefore be forced to vote against the settlement unless those steps are announced in the Minister's reply. The county council would certainly want the cap to be raised, so that additional resources might be raised locally by local taxpayers to pay for services that local taxpayers want. People have consistently voted for better spending and improved spending on education; if the Minister cares to visit Clwyd, he will find that many people in my community are willing to pay more in the absence of proper Government spending to achieve that level of services.
The Minister needs to consider many technical aspects of capping. In Clwyd, matters such as the Dee crossing and the Bryn Estyn case place additional costs on the county council, but are not, in the opinion of the county council or Members of Parliament who represent that county, adequately reflected in the calculation of the standard spending assessment.
Obviously, the council cannot achieve cuts of £8 million in 1995–96 without seriously reducing services. Let me remind the Minister that those serious reductions follow £22 million of reductions in county council spending in the past three years alone. The county council cannot do that without further serious cuts in services. The settlement is detrimental to the people of Clwyd and to the people whom I represent.
I leave the Secretary of State and the Minister with the thought that there are things that can be done by the Government to improve the situation in Clwyd. There is a will in Clwyd to find additional money from existing resources to help to offset the effects of the settlement, but, ultimately, people in my county want and demand good services. They want and demand maintenance of the existing level of services. If the Minister votes tonight to maintain the settlement, he will commit my county to

serious decisions on the future of schools, social services, highways, the infrastructure and the industrial development of Clwyd.
People in my constituency say that they do not want increased class sizes; they do not want reduced numbers of teachers; they do not want less spending on buildings, fewer books and less spending on the range of school matters. They do not wish old people to be forced to pay increased charges for their home helps. They do not wish the infrastructure of our local community to be run down. The one way in which I can reflect those demands is to vote against the settlement, and I shall do so with pleasure.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am disappointed that the Secretary of State is not in the Chamber at the moment. For some time, I had tried to obtain a meeting with him to discuss some important economic matters in the south of my constituency. I wrote to him in English, as I know that he does not like anything Welsh, but I could not obtain a reply. Eventually, I received a reply saying that he would see me after Christmas—that is when he would be up in the constituency.
Nevertheless, the Secretary of State appeared in September on the set of the "White Knight" film. He has since referred to "White Knight" in speeches with worrying regularity. He even referred to "White Knight" in the Welsh Grand Committee. He sees himself as some kind of white knight. I should prefer to call him something else, but he is not here to meet that particular barrage just now and, in any event, time does not permit the full number of words that I should like to use.
The white knight syndrome typifies the right hon. Gentleman's style of politics. I am grateful for the revised settlement for the police, which is sensible and will serve the needs of north Wales very well; but we have seen the white knight syndrome in action, because the first offer was ridiculous and would not have afforded any level of policing. I speak as the son of a policeman and the brother of a policeman, and I am a qualified lawyer and have had many dealings with the police. As the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) well knows, the first settlement would have been a disaster for north Wales, hence the review of £3.3 million when the white knight came riding in with bags of much-needed money. It is a silly ploy to offer a couple of peanuts and then hand over half a bag of them. We can all see through it; the public can see through it and are clearly aware of what is going on.
The right hon. Member for Conwy and I have a common interest—apart from being two humans, our constituencies split the borough of Aberconwy. He said earlier—I think in reference to Gwynedd—that further cuts were good for the soul. I do not accept for one moment that further cuts are good for the soul given the consistent deep cuts in Gwynedd over four or five years. Those are not empty words—as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, there have been substantial cuts. To say that those cuts are good for the soul is little short of disingenuous.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I said—the hon. Gentleman can check it in the Official Report—that the exercise experienced in Gwynedd of a 1 per cent. cut, an additional


1 per cent. cut, then a possible 2 per cent. cut might be good for the soul and might appeal to the Audit Commission. I also said that I did not think that the cuts would be called upon.

Mr. Llwyd: With the greatest of respect, if the right hon. Gentleman looks back over the past three or four years, he will see that such cuts have been made. I do not know why this year should be different from those years. I have attempted to make that point. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I do not think that it took us much further.
I agree entirely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who spoke of the pressing need for nursery school provision. We in Wales have a great pride in our education system and have always seen the value of good education. I have one perfectly true story of what happened in my constituency five years ago. A gentleman came from a public school to teach a science subject in a secondary school in the south of my constituency. When he arrived at the school, he saw that the laboratory was a shambles. Gwynedd education authority had no money to invest in the school—I do not blame it for that, as it had other priorities all over the county and a small budget with which to meet the needs. The teacher rang a friend of his in the science department of a public school and asked him if he had spare equipment. His friend said that it was just as  rung as the public school was installing a  laboratory and his friend could have the old one.
That secondary school now has the best-equipped physics laboratory in Gwynedd. We are relying on scraps. There is a hidden agenda, and we know what it is. The Government want education for the rich and any old nonsense for the rest of us. They are in the business of establishing, yet again, a ruling class. We are not blind and we can see what is going on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) mentioned the hidden problems of this year's budget. Care in the community is becoming an increasing drain on local authority resources. As the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said, there is no doubt that the policy is welcomed in principle, but unless it is properly financed, it will not achieve what was intended.
The right hon. Member for Conwy mentioned one or two matters raised by Aberconwy borough council in its responses to the settlement. As he said, the strategic development scheme announcements were disappointing for the borough. I echo that sentiment and go further—there is no conceivable reason why the scheme should not have been allowed.
Aberconwy is not designated for European assistance in the form of grant aid. If what I have seen of Welsh Office applications to Europe for grant funding in south Gwynedd is anything to go by, its procedure is a shambles. I wonder when, if ever, we shall gain any form of credibility in the European Union. The application for south Gwynedd has been submitted to the European Union Commission three times. It was submitted in March and was bounced back, marked in red—we are talking about education-to show where the application had gone wrong. It was resubmitted in April or May and was bounced back marked in a different colour. Shortly after Christmas, this year, there was a meeting so that the directors general, of the various departments could tell the

Welsh Office how to put a case together. We in south Gwynedd have waited almost 12 months to advance one inch, and have not yet done so. I suspect that that is one reason why the white knight would not see me earlier than next week, despite many attempts by me and those in my office to see him earlier. I am disappointed in the general level of proficiency in the Welsh Office vis-à-vis its contacts with the European mainland.
I shall develop the argument put fairly and squarely by the right hon. Member for Conwy about the concern in Aberconwy about the rent allowance costs, which are a heavy burden. I would be obliged if the Minister would look again at the effects on Aberconwy and other areas in Wales of that policy. At present, it is a drain and little else, and it should be shored up, otherwise other cuts will have to be made—where, I cannot say. I appreciate that the SSA formula recognises the incidence of rent allowance, but it does not deal sufficiently with its effects. Will the Minister respond to that point in due course?
The right hon. Member for Conwy mentioned the £3.46 million cut. Whatever the position and the mathematics, that represents a real cut. Gwynedd, Dyfed, Clwyd and other responsible authorities throughout Wales have avoided cutting their education budgets. Part of the reason for that is probably that we in Wales respect good education and what it can provide in a normal economy. This year, there is no doubt that Gwynedd's education budget will be cut. It is no use the Minister saying that it is because of this, that or the other; it is directly because the money allocated is insufficient to meet the county's needs.
Mention has been made of the further 1 per cent. cut in Gwynedd's staffing budget, the 1 per cent. cut in the total budget and a possible further 2 per cent. cut. Those are stark enough cuts in themselves, but when they come in the fifth year of cuts, the position becomes almost unmanageable. I am sure that many officers and members in local government in Gwynedd are fed up with being apologists for the Government. They are at the sharp end and have to deal with the cuts and try to explain them. They know that if a responsible administration were looking after a central, core budget, the cuts would not have to be made. But there will be a cut in Gwynedd's budget. It gives me no pleasure to say that. As various hon. Members have said, there are hidden problems in the budget in Gwynedd which involve community care and which will impact even further than has been suggested.
Dyfed county council is proud of its education system and of the way in which it has looked after its schools in the face of tremendous funding pressure. There is a link between Dyfed and Gwynedd, as both counties have a large number of fairly small primary schools. Those of us who come from rural backgrounds know how important village or town schools are to communities. The local authorities have recognised that fact and they have hitherto safeguarded their schools. However, they fear that they cannot hold out any longer; the dyke will burst any minute. Many dozens of villages throughout Dyfed, Gwynedd and Clwyd will suffer directly as a result of the settlement that has been offered.
As I mentioned in an intervention, Dyfed has recognised that it will have to cut its community education provisions. The nature of school meals will change and they will cost more. The local authority will be not be able to maintain school buildings. We obviously face difficult times, and it is not good enough for the Government to


say that we should cut the cloth accordingly. The cloth has been cut as much as it can be cut, and the Government must recognise that fact.
The Secretary of State recognised that there was a crisis in policing in north Wales. I had several meetings with him to discuss that subject, as did other hon. Members. We are now facing a crisis of equal proportions, and this crisis is not simply confined to the police; it extends to education, transport, social services and community care. I invite the Government to reconsider this savage settlement, which will do nothing for local government.
The new unitary authorities will be grossly disadvantaged. Many of us were involved in the legislative process last year, and we do not want to bequeath those authorities a legacy of failure before they have even commenced operations. The settlement must be reviewed if we are to adopt a responsible attitude to local government in Wales.

Dr. Kim Howells: It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). At the end of his speech he highlighted a matter which worries a great many Welsh people as we move towards the establishment of unitary authorities in Wales. In that respect, we are much further ahead than England.
I am worried about a whole range of subjects, and my hon. Friend referred to some of them. We face a serious problem with the maintenance of school buildings in the valleys of south Wales. School buildings are literally sliding down the hillsides because of the extensive mining that occurred in the past, and the cost of shoring up those buildings is often exorbitant.
A question mark hangs over the future of special needs education in schools in south Wales. Marvellous initiatives have been taken in special needs education—mainly instigated, not by the Government, but by staff and pupils. The "much despised creatures"—as they are described by the Government Front Bench—the administrators of education in Wales, have done a marvellous job trying to integrate children with handicaps into mainstream education. We aim to give everyone an equal opportunity in society and allow them their rightful civil liberties.
My children do not have fields to play in and I perceive a constant need throughout the urban centres in Wales for green spaces for our children in schools.
I am concerned about the state of our schools and the problems associated with their maintenance. Owing to the topography of south Wales and its industrial past, many buildings in Pontypridd will have to be grouted at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Many of the schools in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) have faced a real crisis. Old and newer mining operations have burrowed under schools and under whole communities. What might be a quite expensive repair bill for a household, can prove catastrophic for a school. As a result, ordinary care and maintenance jobs, such as painting walls and repairing electrical fittings or windows,

are often put off for many years in schools in south Wales. The money must be spent simply to keep the walls and the buildings together.
A school in my area, ysgol Gyfan Rhydfelin, had to nail doors shut because subsidence had forced the walls askew and prevented the doors from locking. It was a fire hazard and an absolute disgrace. We solved that problem, but only after quite a struggle. That school also has terrapin classrooms. Time and again, schools in south Wales solve their maintenance problems by housing children in temporary classrooms. The climate is invariably very wet and often very cold, and no child should spend his or her educational life under those appalling conditions.
Mine was the most lucky of generations because when I went to school in south Wales the schools had just been built. They were airy and light. People believed that children should not be trapped in concrete playgrounds, and the schools were surrounded by fields. They were marvellous places.
Those same schools which were built in the 1950s and 1960s are now falling apart because the maintenance costs simply cannot be met. The school maintenance budget in Mid Glamorgan alone has been cut by £1.5 million. There is no excuse for that, and I hope that the Minister will address the problem.
Special needs education concerns me enormously. Many schools in Wales have done a marvellous job providing special education. The special care unit at Bryncelynog school in my constituency has pioneered all sorts of projects. A little primary school at Pentyrch has transformed not only the lives of the disabled children who have now been integrated into mainstream education, but the whole school, because it has changed schoolchildren's views of those who have physical handicaps. That marvellous initiative must not be threatened in any shape or form by the Government's tight-fisted fiscal policies. Integration should continue and special needs must be met.
The schools in the constituencies of my hon. Friends are crying out for speech therapists and for peripatetic physiotherapists, which would solve the problem of children taking whole days off school in order to receive physiotherapy treatment in hospitals. We are talking about our future wealth-creating base: our children. We cannot afford not to tap the potential of children with disabilities any more than we can afford not to tap the potential of those children who are lucky enough not to suffer any disability.
Finally, I return to the problem of the lack of green spaces in so many of our schools. My own children's school, Coedylan primary and junior school, has no grass for the children to play on; it has a small, concrete playground. That position is echoed throughout Wales.
There was a time when children could play on the mountainsides and in the streets. They cannot do that any more. Anyone with kids knows that parents are too paranoid and frightened to allow their children to roam on the mountainsides because of the stories that we hear. Children cannot play in the streets because there are too many cars.
If I may be slightly flippant, I suspect that one of the reasons why the Welsh rugby, soccer and cricket teams have performed so badly in recent years—heroically perhaps, but pretty badly—is that kids are inhibited by the


fact that their whole sports lives are structured. The only time they ever indulge in sports is when they take part at school or go to a special coaching class on a Saturday.
If financial pressures are to be brought to bear on boards of governors, education authorities and schools, there must be no more sell-offs of school playing fields and green spaces. Those facilities have to be properly maintained and extended.
I am glad that the Secretary of State has returned to the Chamber. He has missed some marvellous speeches from hon. Members who have kids attending schools in Wales—as mine and those of my constituents do. He will have heard that there is what amounts to a crisis, certainly in the minds of many of us who observe what is happening in schools today. For that reason alone, I shall vote against the Government tonight. I hope that they listen to what has been said. It is extremely important because those children are the future of Wales.

Mr. Alan Williams: I apologise for croaking my way through just a few comments in the aftermath of cold. The nub of the debate was an exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) in his opening speech and the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend pointed out that when we take out of the settlement the special amounts for the police and for community care, we are talking about an increase of 0.4 per cent. at best. Immediately, the Secretary of State rose to his feet and his answer was, "It is all right because inflation has fallen to 2 per cent."
It seemed strange that the Secretary of State could put forward such a proposition. He was saying that it was all right because the rate of inflation will be only five times higher—instead of six or seven times higher—than the extra money being provided. Most of us know that it will be six or seven times higher at some time during the year. That is what it is all about—the authorities were first entrapped and then virtually strangled for years as far as resources are concerned.
My own county has absorbed £6 million in cuts in the past three years by using up some of its reserves. The Secretary of State said that we should not worry about the increase in teachers' pay because the provision is enough to cover it. How can he say that before he knows what the teachers' pay increase will be? The provision was set long before he could even have had prior warning of what the increase would be—which no doubt he has now.
The Secretary of State has no accounting or statistical grounds to say that an increase of one fifth of the rate of inflation will enable local authorities to cover an unknown and significant—although most of us would say inadequate—increase in teachers' pay. I have to declare an interest as my wife is a teacher. We have to recognise that the consequence of today's announcement is either cuts in teaching staff or larger classes, leading to a reduction in the standards of education provision.
I caution hon. Members about the idea being pushed by one Conservative Member about lifting the cap. Let me make this cautionary point about what the Secretary of State has said about the 89 per cent. central provision. If the Government decided to fund the teachers' pay rise by lifting the cap, a 1 per cent. increase in local authority

costs would mean a 9 per cent. increase in the council tax because of the ratchet effect, so councils would be blamed for the fact that the Government have under-provided.
I now come to another peculiar proposition that the Government have suddenly dug up. The Secretary of State has been thoroughly briefed. He mentioned reserves in addition to school reserves. His case was that the reserves will be the solution for this year. What is the Secretary of State actually saying about reserves? We know that the Government always say that to be in debt is wrong and will criticise those irresponsible councils which get into debt—of course, they are not Conservative councils according to the Government—yet the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box to announce increased borrowing powers to get councils deeper into debt.
What about the concept of reserves? Are they good or bad? The Secretary of State does not really know. He cannot make up his mind. Are the schools which have no reserves virtuous because they used them up to meet previous cuts in resources, or are the schools with big reserves being prudent? The Secretary of State will not give us any guidance. He depends on his concept of a prudent level of reserves, but he gives no indication of what it is.
We understand that there is a difference between certain reserves. We know that big reserves are good in grant-maintained schools because the right hon. Gentleman has told us so, but the Government will not tell us whether those reserves are good in other schools. We assume they cannot be good, because the Government are telling them to use them up. That is the illogicality of our position.
I made an intervention about information technology. Is it not anomalous that at Question Time the Secretary of State will stand up and say, "Look at what inward investment in information technology and electronic engineering has meant to Wales," but, at the same time as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has announced a scheme in England to make extra information technology facilities and equipment available in English schools, he has flatly refused to do the same in Wales, which, according to him, will be hoisted by the boot laces by the electronics and information technology industries?
The Secretary of State is a mass of inconsistencies. He had the cheek to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly—I know that it was a jocular comment—that my hon. Friend leaves the shadow Cabinet to make the tea. We all know very well that the Government will not let the right hon. Gentleman leave the Cabinet to make the tea.

Dr. Howells: Because he would poison it.

Mr. Williams: No, because while he was outside he would sell the kettle. Is that not what they are advocating? They are telling schools to spend the money that they put aside to buy equipment. That is what the Secretary of State said. I have never heard such financial absurdity. I will go with relish into the Lobby to vote against it.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The consistent theme from the Opposition has been the dire straits into which the local government settlement has put local authorities in Wales. There is no doubt that all my hon. Friends have consistently made a plea for the Government to


reconsider the settlement, which will result in a cut in the services which local authorities in Wales will be able to provide. We heard from the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) the novel suggestion that county councils could, as they go out of existence, run down their reserves with impunity. Has it not occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that immensely important education, social, highways and transportation services will have to be provided by the new unitary authorities? It will be prudent of county councils, as it will of district councils, to maintain balances that can be handed over to the new authorities.
The Secretary of State said today, as he did on ITN lunchtime news yesterday, that a lot of money is available. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) reminded us that the Secretary of State could not have included sufficient money to cover the pay review body's settlement for teachers, which will not be announced until later this week. It would have been impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to anticipate last December the fine-tuning in January and to know exactly the review body's recommendation. He does not know the figure any more than local education authorities, even though all have tried to make budgetary provision for that pay increase.
None of the education authorities in Wales has wholly provided for the anticipated 2.9 per cent. pay increase. All will have to dip into their balances to make up the shortfall. Some authorities have already told schools that they are expected to provide some of the extra funding. Other authorities may be able to do so out of the fabled, fabulous balances that they are supposed to hold.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will say if he knows anything more about today's school balances compared with the figures thrown about at the start of this financial year. My bet is that most schools have already used their balances to purchase better equipment or more books and for other purposes. The consistent message from virtually every Welsh council is that the budget represents a cut over last year.
The Secretary of State was at pains to stress that one must compare like with like and the settlement for this and last year. Local authorities must consider the money that they had to spend this year and that which the right hon. Gentleman is making available for next year. Whichever indicator one uses—the TSS, AEF, SSA or other initials that come to mind in respect of local government spending—it is clear that there will be a real terms cut this year. Although there will be extra money, it will buy less. The same is true of education and housing authorities.
My hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West pointed out that the message from north, south, east and west Wales is that more money is needed. The same is said beyond Wales—the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) brought the same message from the Liberal Democrats.
The Secretary of State can say as much as he likes about extra cash, but it will not buy the same in the current financial year that it did last year. Cuts have been made over several years. Over the past three years, Mid

Glamorgan has had to make savings of £34 million. This year, authorities throughout Wales are being stretched on the rack and are falling apart.
Today I received two letters from Clwyd, over which the Secretary of State took so much time to salivate in his criticisms. Mr. Edward Williams of ysgol Morgan Llwyd wrote:
Teimlwn bod ein pobl ifanc wn haeddu gwell.
That means, "Our children deserve better." The Federation of Welsh Schools commented that teachers are fed up trying to hold together a system that is falling apart around them.
Pupil-teacher ratios are a good indicator of the economic climate in education. From 1979 until 1990, pupil-teacher ratios in secondary schools fell year on year—from 16.8 pupils per teacher to 15.3. In 1993, ratios began to creep up, to 15.7 pupils per teacher. In primary schools, the ratio was at its lowest in 1984, when it was 21.5 pupils per teacher. By 1993, it had increased to 22.1. The situation is worsening inexorably.
Judging from the cash available, there has been an increase in district budgets of 1.1 per cent., but when one considers what can be bought, that represents a reduction of 2.5 per cent.—£11 million less than what is needed for a standstill budget. Compared with district council spending last year, there will be an overall cut of nearly 6 per cent.
The number of homeless in Wales is increasing and the state of its housing stock is worsening. Current new builds are probably only half the number required. The Government signed up to the United Nations housing strategy—a declaration, as far as Wales was concerned, that there would be houses for all by the year 2000. The money given to local authorities or to Tai Cymru will probably allow only 40 per cent. of that target to be achieved. In the year that the Government signed that document, they have already admitted failure. There will be deeply damaging cuts in both industrial and rural Wales.
The Secretary of State was at pains also to stress that he had fully catered for improved technology, to help bring the new unitary authorities into being—and we applaud him for that. He has catered in full also for the shadow authorities' budget. However, when it comes to financing possible redundancies, the right hon. Gentleman has provided £3.5 million, which must be borrowed.
The Secretary of State is on record as saying that he expects very few workers to lose their jobs, even though at one time he talked about a 5 per cent. loss which he thought would mainly be accomplished by natural wastage. There are huge differences in the numbers who are likely to lose their jobs and the terms on which they will lose them.
The Government have chosen, in their arcane way, to interpret TUPE—the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—in such a way as to exclude a large number of local government workers. As is often the case when the Government interpret the directive's demands, they have got it wrong. This is another instance in which they would be well advised to come to a new accommodation with local government workers to make sure that the redundancy scheme is properly financed. How many people's redundancies can be financed on a £3.5 million scheme? Very few, I would guess.
In addition to local government reorganisation, the Welsh Office is proposing that contracting out be reintroduced in Wales much sooner than in England, where the Department of the Environment is proposing a reasonable delay of 18 months to enable the new authorities to settle in before moving to compulsory competitive tendering. In Wales, however, some authorities have to begin the job six months after reorganisation, some a year after and many 18 months after. Bearing in mind the difficulties that local authorities will have with their budgets, will the Secretary of State extend the period before local authorities have to examine the problems that CCT will cause them?
Finally, I deal with efficiency. The Welsh Office's own expenditure plans showed efficiency savings of 2 per cent., 2 per cent., 1.5 per cent. and 1.7 per cent. for 1992–93. All of a sudden, in 1993–94, the planned efficiency saving was 5.6 per cent. Will the Minister tell us exactly what savings were achieved that year?
Let us examine staff numbers in local government and the Welsh Office. Whereas Welsh Office staff have declined in number by 82 since 1979—a reduction of just over 3 per cent.—local government staff have declined by nearly 14,000, or about 6 per cent., which is double the number of redundancies. By any measure, local government has already shown itself to be more efficient.
The settlement proves that the Welsh Office, by having 15 press officers and quadrupling its publicity expenditure, is trying to sell the impossible in Wales. We shall be left with crumbling and under-resourced schools, exhausted and over stretched teachers, frenzied fund-raising parents trying to get money for the basics in our schools, impoverished housing stock, houses unfit for habitation, growing repair lists, growing numbers of homeless, roads increasingly potholed and taking longer to repair and overstretched social services. The needs of children and the elderly will not be met, and it will all be down to a settlement that is wholly inadequate for the needs of the real world. We shall vote against the settlement proposals.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): We have heard the traditional claims that this or that is going wrong and that we are heading for disaster or crisis. One need only turn to the previous year's debate or that of the previous year or the one before to realise that the same claim has been made again.
Let us analyse today's debate. It is clear that it has been a low-key, even-tempered debate about how local government in Wales is proceeding in the final year before our popular reorganisation. The only thing that we have not heard is a positive alternative from Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), whom I can at least congratulate on broadening the debate more than any of his colleagues, either today or in previous debates on Welsh affairs. However, the hon. Gentleman will have to pay more attention to the facts. I assure him that we have given careful consideration to compensation for local government reorganisation and have included appropriate funding for the costs that are likely to arise in the coming financial year.
Nor has the hon. Gentleman studied his housing brief. He certainly has not read the interim house condition survey, which was published last year and which outlined the continuing improvement in housing in Wales. No doubt he will examine it more closely in future.
The settlement gives local government in Wales an additional £87 million to spend—a total of more than £950 for every man, woman and child in Wales. It provides more money for the police—a fact widely welcomed by police authorities—and for care in the community. In addition, there is £43 million to fund the costs of local government reorganisation and a generous increase in the local government settlement for the forthcoming year.
Welsh local authorities are responsible for very large budgets. All but one county council have budgets of more than £150 million. They have flexibility to manage their budgets as they see fit and will be setting their budgets at a time of low inflation, which means that their money will go much further than last year or previous years. They can use accumulated reserves to fund expenditure if they consider it prudent to do so.
In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out that there is always room for efficiency savings in large-scale organisations. Given the discretion available to them, I cannot accept Opposition Members' argument that the settlement will not enable local authorities to protect the front line or, most important, functions. They can protect those functions if they have the will to do so.
Central Government support will account for about 89 per cent. of total standard spending. Local authorities will have increased scope for raising revenue locally, which they have sought in the past. At the same time, Welsh council tax payers will pay considerably less for their council than their counterparts in England and Scotland. Those on income support or low incomes can qualify for benefit up to 100 per cent. of their council tax bill.
I am not prepared to speculate on council tax levels for 1995–96; that is a matter for individual local authorities. Council tax levels will depend on local authorities' budget decisions and their success in collection and changes in their tax base. Welsh billing authorities have an excellent record on collection, for which I commend them. I understand that they estimate a surplus of £15 million on collection funds at 31 March this year. That is very good news for council tax payers in Wales as it means that they will benefit from lower bills—a reduction of about £15 at band D in the coming financial year. Indeed, press reports suggest that at least one Welsh local authority is planning to reduce its council tax.
None the less, I must tell the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) that it is essential for the Government to have power to protect local taxpayers from unreasonable council tax increases, especially at times when it is necessary to restrain public expenditure.
Opposition Members have voiced their concern for local taxpayers in speculating on the council tax increase that will result from the settlement proposals. It seems inconsistent for them to argue for the removal of capping, which would almost certainly result in a considerable increase. They cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Hanson: Will the Minister explain why the Welsh Office knows better than the people of Clwyd, who elected 32 Labour councillors out of a total of 66 in the


most recent election and who have previously delivered a Labour majority? The Minister's party has six councillors. Is not local democracy about letting local people decide on the local services that they want?

Mr. Jones: Capping is now a well accepted and appreciated protection. Local electors know that they have that protection in addition to the accountability that they should expect to come directly from their councillors.
Welsh local authorities have established an excellent record for prudent budgeting in recent years, and I trust that that will continue. The criteria for capping are provisional, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take all relevant considerations into account before making his final decisions.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) reminded us that he has no policies on this matter, just as he has no policies on anything else. The proposal to abolish capping is only a consultative proposal. We all know how thin Labour's policies are; it was understandable that the hon. Gentleman should appeal to my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) to write to him and offer anything that he could possibly set up as a policy—so desperate is the hon. Gentleman to find something positive to say.
The police settlement is excellent, and is consistent with the new funding formula arrangements. It will be welcomed by the public and the new police authorities, if not by Opposition Members. It is essential for the new authorities to have a sound financial base in their first year, so that they can provide the high quality of policing that the public have a right to expect. As single-service authorities, they will have less flexibility than counties and districts in making budgetary decisions; they may also wish to build a prudent level of reserves to meet contingencies in future years.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Caerphilly welcomed the police settlement. I can well appreciate the condemnation that he implied about past spending decisions and policing levels, not least in the constituency of Islwyn. The electorate of that constituency will note the disapproval expressed by the shadow Secretary of State for Wales. The spending decisions of the police forces in Gwent and South Wales were made by Labour county councillors, and the electorate should consider Labour county councillors' priorities when deciding whether to give their traditional vote to the Labour candidate yet again.
Much of today's debate has been about education, especially the speeches of the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), for Delyn, for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). Their comments were very much in line with the emphasis that we who come from Wales have always placed, and will continue to place, on that important subject.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jones: I am short of time, but I will take one last intervention.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I thank the Minister, because he has made an important point. He said that the police

authorities' spending decisions were made by Labour councillors. Is he telling us that the spending decisions that led to the difficulties experienced by South Wales police authority were made by Labour councillors? That is not the impression that I have gained from the press; nor is it the impression gained by the police.

Mr. Jones: I cannot imagine where the hon. Gentleman gets his impressions from, impressionable young man though he may be. The fact is that Labour county councillors kept the South Wales constabulary desperately short of money. I know what the current impression is among the hon. Gentleman's electorate and mine in Cardiff: they welcome a 15 per cent. increase in spending for the South Wales constabulary, which will right the wrong perpetrated by Labour councillors.
Inevitably, there have been many complaints about alleged cuts in education by one or more of the eight county councils in Wales. In theory they come of age this year, but I do not think that that will be celebrated as much as their conclusion next year. What the apologists in the Opposition say confirms that those councils appear to be incapable of making their own decisions, which are forced on them by someone else every time—usually the Government.
The hon. Member for Delyn asked me about prudent balances. The district auditor and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy recommend that authorities should have reasonable balances; what is reasonable in any particular case is a matter for the individual authority and its auditor. I realise that that is not in line with the hon. Gentleman's centralising tendency: amazingly, in an early intervention, he appeared to be asking for the power to decide education spending to be taken away from Clwyd county council. That must have been his local concern.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that some balances are needed for prudent management, and that it is a good idea for schools to save up for new equipment. He has also said something that is plain common sense: how can schools with £47 million in balances say that they cannot afford to pay their teachers when they have so much in the bank?
The hon. Member for Pontypridd asked me about education capital spending. The constituency example that he gave is a matter for Mid Glamorgan county council. In the current financial year, counties have received credit approvals amounting to £42.5 million for education capital spending—a rise of 11.6 per cent. on last year. Next year will see a further increase of 7 per cent., to £45.3 million. I hope that authorities will hear what the hon. Gentleman says and what we say, and will make the best possible use of the resources and capital receipts that are available. I hope that they will renovate and replace classrooms like that featured on the front page of today's Western Mail.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, county councils certainly have the financial ability to make education a priority—to provide for the pupils of tomorrow, and to provide more rather than fewer teachers. But they choose other priorities: they choose to spend the money elsewhere. My right hon. Friend reminded us that Clwyd allows only 68p in every £1 of the school budget to reach schools, and rightly contrasted that with the position of Powys, where the figure is as high as 78p. The sums that Welsh county councils are keeping back from


schools are not small. In Clywd, the total is more than £17.5 million, in Gwent rit is nearly £22 million, in South Glamorgan it is nearly £16 million and in West Glamorgan it is nearly £14 million.
I am sure that parents will wish to consider how much money is being kept from their schools. They will want to decide who they trust more to make spending decisions—their local schools, or remote education committees. I think that many will believe that their schools are almost certainly better placed to make the right decisions, and will decide, for instance, to provide more teachers rather than adopting the scare tactic of slashing numbers that is so beloved of Labour education committees.
For too long, Labour has regarded Wales as largely a collection of rotten boroughs. Not long ago, an article was published in which someone said of Welsh Labour councillors that the "we know best" attitude must change. He called for Labour councillors to treat people as potential converts rather than eternal enemies, and demanded a new type of considerate councillor. Who was that far-seeing individual? It was the hon. Member for Caerphilly, in an article entitled "Call to end 'Cult of Arrogance"'. There is testimony from the expert himself about the way in which the Labour party has treated the people of Wales.
We have new councils this year—new, popular councils that will be close to the people. Here is the opportunity for the people of Wales to take control of those councils, and to cast away the tide of arrogance that has dominated local government in Wales for so long. This is the opportunity for councillors, who are responsive to the people of Wales, to run efficient councils and provide value for money with attractive council tax. Already, one council in Wales is talking about cutting its council tax. That could be followed by so many councils in Wales, which could ensure that priorities were right and that money went, in particular, to education so that we could have more teachers rather than fewer.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 269.

Division No. 68]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Aitken.Rt Hon Jonathan
Booth, Hartley


Alexander, Richard
Boswell, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Amess, David
Bowis, John


Arbuthnot, James
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brandreth, Gyles


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Brazier, Julian 


Ashby, David
Bright, Sir Graham


Atkins, Robert
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)


Baldry, Tony
Burns, Simon


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Butcher.John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butler, Peter


Bates, Michael
Butterfill, John


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bendall, Vivian
Carrington, Matthew


Beresford, Sir Paul
Carttiss, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cash, William


Body, Sir Richard
Channon, Rt Hon Paul





Churchill, Mr
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clappison, James
Hendry, Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Colvin, Michael
Horam, John


Congdon, David
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Conway, Derek
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jack, Michael


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jessel, Toby


Day, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Duncan, Alan
Key, Robert


Duncan Smith, lain
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dunn, Bob
King, Rt Hon Tom


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Knapman, Roger


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'stn)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evennett, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Faber, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fabricant, Michael
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Legg, Barry


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Leigh, Edward


Fishburn, Dudley
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Forman, Nigel
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forth, Eric
Lidington, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lightbown, David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lord, Michael


French, Douglas
Luff, Peter


Fry, Sir Peter
Lyell.Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gallie, Phil
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, Sir George
MacKay, Andrew


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Maclean, David


Garnier, Edward
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gillan, Cheryl
Madel, Sir David


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Maitland, Lady Olga


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Malone, Gerald


Gorst, Sir John
Mans, Keith


Grant, Sir A (SWCambs)
Marland, Paul


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mates, Michael


Hague, William
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Merchant Piers


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mills, lain


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hannam, Sir John
Moate, Sir Roger


Hargreaves, Andrew
Monro, Sir Hector


Harris, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Haselhurst, Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Hawkins, Nick
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Nelson, Anthony


Hayes, Jerry
Neubert, Sir Michael


Heald, Oliver
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Nicholls, Patrick






Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Steen, Anthony


Norris, Steve
Stephen, Michael


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Stern, Michael


Oppenheim, Phillip
Streeter, Gary


Ottaway, Richard
Sumberg, David


Page, Richard
Sweeney, Walter


Paice, James
Sykes, John


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pickles, Eric
Thomason, Roy


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Townend, John (Brildlington)


Powel, William (Corby)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Rathbone, Tim
Tracey, Richard


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick David


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Trend, Michael


Riddick, Graham
Trotter, Neville


Robathan, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Viggers, Peter


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Walden, George


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Waller, Gary


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Ward.John


Sackville, Tom
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Waterson, Nigel


Scott Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Watts, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Whitney, Ray


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Whittingdale, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shersby, Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sims, Roger
Wilkinson, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Willetts, David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Speed, Sir Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Yeo,Tim


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spring, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sproat,lain
Mr. Sydney Chapman, and


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Mr. Bowen Wells.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bradley, Keith


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Allen, Graham
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Alton, David
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Burden, Richard


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Callaghan, Jim


Austin-Walker, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Ronnie (Btyth V)


Battle, John
Campbell-Savours, D N


Bayley.Hugh
Canavan, Dennis


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cann, Jamie


Beggs, Roy
Chidgey, David


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bell, Stuart
Church, Judith


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clapham, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Berry, Roger
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Clelland, David


Blunkett, David
Clwyd,Mrs Ann


Boateng, Paul
Coffey, Ann


Boyes, Roland
Cohen, Harry





Connarty, Michael
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Corbett Robin
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jamieson, David


Corston, Jean
Janner, Greville


Cousins, Jim
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cox, Tom
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cummings, John
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dafis,Cynog
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dalyell, Tam
Jowel, Tessa


Darling, Alistair
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Keen, Alan


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Denham, John
Khabra, Piara S


Dewar, Donald
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dixon,Don
Kirkwood, Archy


Dobson, Frank
Lester, Joan (Eccles)


Donohoe, Brian H
Lewis, Terry


Dowd, Jim
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Litherland, Robert


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Livingstone, Ken


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eastham, Ken
Llwyd, Elfyn


Enright, Derek
Loyden, Eddie


Etherington, Bill
Lynne, Ms Liz


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McAllion, John


Fatchett Derek
McAvoy, Thomas


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McCartney, Ian


Fisher, Mark
McCrea, The Reverend William


Flynn, Paul
Macdonald, Calum


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McKelvey, William


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fraser, John
McMaster, Gordon


Fyfe, Maria
McNamara, Kevin


Galbraith, Sam
MacShane, Denis


Galloway, George
McWillam, John


Gapes, Mike
Madden, Max


George, Bruce
Maddock, Diana


Gerrard, Neil
Mahon, Alice


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mandelson, Peter


Godman, Dr Norman A
Marek, Dr John


Godsiff, Roger
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Golding, Mrs Lin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gordon, Mildred
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meacher, Michael


Grocott, Bruce
Meale, Alan


Gunnell, John
Michael, Alun


Hall, Mike
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hanson, David
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hardy, Peter
Milburn, Alan


Harman, Ms Harriet
Miller, Andrew


Harvey, Nick
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Heppell,John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hinchliffe, David
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hodge, Margaret
Mudie, George


Hoey, Kate
Mullin, Chris


Home Robertson, John
Murphy, Paul


Hood, Jimmy
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Hara, Edward


Hoyle, Doug
Olner, Bill


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Hutton,John
Parry, Robert


Illsley, Eric
Patchett Terry






Pearson, Ian
Soley, Clive


Pendry, Tom
Spearing, Nigel


Pickthall, Colin
Spellar, John


Pike, Peter L
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Pope, Greg
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Steinberg, Gerry


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Stevenson, George


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stott, Roger


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Primarolo, Dawn
Straw, Jack


Quin, Ms Joyce
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Radice, Giles
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Randall, Stuart
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Redmond, Martin
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Reid, Dr John
Timms, Stephen


Rendel, David
Tipping, Paddy


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Turner, Dennis


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Tyler, Paul


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Rooker.Jeff
Wallace, James


Rooney, Terry
Walley, Joan


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wardel, Gareth (Gower)


Rowlands, Ted
Wareing, Robert N


Ruddock, Joan
Watson, Mike


Sedgemore, Brian
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheerman, Barry
Wigley, Dafydd


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Short, Clare
Wilson, Brian


Simpson, Alan
Worthington, Tony


Skinner, Dennis
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smyth, The Reverend Martin
Mr. Stephen Byers, and


Snape, Peter
Mr. Joe Benton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1995–96 (House of Commons Paper No. 140), which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.

It being after Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions necessary to dispose of the other motions relating to local government finance in Wales, pursuant to Order [3 February].

Resolved,
That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (Wales) 1995-96 (House of Commons Paper No. 141), which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
That the Special Grant Report (Wales) 1995 (House of Commons Paper No. 142), which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Conway.]

Orders of the Day — Points of Order

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have given the Minister prior notice of what I am about to say. Tonight on Channel 4, Eastern Electricity is being exposed as having perpetrated a disgraceful scam on 3 million customers by billing them three weeks in advance and virtually embezzling the interest. What I should like to see—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. What I should like to know is what is the point of order for the Chair? There has been none so far, although I shall listen a little longer to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Griffiths: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that to happen without a statement being made by the President of the Board of Trade so that he can take action tonight to ensure that that money is returned to all the customers?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?

Mr. Mackinlay: Not absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that point of order.

Orders of the Day — Children (Northern Ireland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): I beg to move,
That the draft Children (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 12th January, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
That the draft Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 12th January, be approved.

Mr. Moss: The draft Children (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1995 has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, so I will confine myself to commenting on the substantive provisions of the draft Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 itself.
First, I shall draw the attention of the House to the general purpose of the order. I shall also say something about the consultation that has taken place and the changes made following publication of the proposal for a draft Children Order in July 1993. As I wish to afford hon. Members who wish to speak as much time as possible, I shall try to be brief.
The order is designed to bring together most of the public and private law relating to children in Northern Ireland in a single statutory framework along the lines of the Children Act 1989, which has been in operation in England and Wales since October 1991.
The order is based on a clear and consistent set of principles designed with the common aim of promoting the welfare of children. It will uphold the view that, wherever possible, children should be brought up and cared for within their own families.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister's giving way to me, especially as he wishes to be brief. As he said that the order followed the Children Act 1989, which applies to England and Wales, will he tell us what lessons have been learnt from the working of that Act and how they have been incorporated in the draft order?

Mr. Moss: I will deal with some of those points later, but if I do not cover them all in this speech I will certainly address the issues that hon. Members have raised when I wind up the debate.
The order makes it clear that the welfare of the child is paramount where a court has to make a decision affecting his or her future, and that children should be protected by effective intervention if they are in danger.
The order will give practical effect to those principles by setting out the services to be provided to support the upbringing of children in need, including disabled children, within their own families. The new concept of parental responsibility that will be introduced will also help to maintain the integrity of the family by ensuring that such responsibilities will continue even when it becomes necessary for a child to be taken into care.
Where the courts intervene in family life the new legislation will provide a clear checklist of matters which must be considered in any family proceedings involving

a child. In particular, the court must ensure that the needs of the child are addressed when decisions are made regarding his or her future.
The order also paves the way for the creation of a guardian at litem service which will ensure that, wherever practicable, the voice of the child is heard in a wide range of care-related proceedings. As regards child protection, the introduction of new powers for the courts to make child assessment and emergency protection orders will provide for effective intervention where necessary, while ensuring that the intervention is open to challenge. A proper balance will thus be struck between the rights of parents and the duty of authorities to intervene where the child's welfare requires action to be taken.
Extensive provision is made for those cases where it is not desirable or practicable for a child to be brought up within his or her own family. Where children are looked after in accommodation provided by a health and social services board or trust, a voluntary organisation or any other type of home, the order will ensure that their welfare is promoted and protected through effective registration and inspection. Similar safeguards will be in place for children who are fostered, and detailed provisions are included to ensure that those providing child minding and day care services are subject to effective registration and inspection procedures.

Rev. Ian Paisley: With regard to the Minister's last statement, it has been widely canvassed in Northern Ireland that the order could carry great weight in relation to church work and Sunday schools, and could also affect the work of various youth groups with boys and girls. Will the Minister comment on that?

Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. There was some concern about the implications of the registration and child minding measures included in the original draft. As a result of the consultation that my noble Friend Baroness Denton undertook in the middle of last year, it was decided to introduce article 121 (6), which now includes the power to exempt specified supervised activities from registration. Boards will now have the power to proscribe activities such as scout and church activities.
I have mentioned that the proposal for a draft order was published for public consultation in July 1993. During the extended consultation period, in excess of 100 organisations and individuals responded. This was followed by a debate in the Northern Ireland Committee in February of last year. My noble Friend Baroness Denton, who then had responsibility for the Department of Health and Social Services, invited members of the Committee to discuss the issues. The outcome of that was an announcement by my noble Friend in July 1994 of the changes to be incorporated in the draft order to be laid before Parliament.
Before I detail those changes, I must take the opportunity to thank all of those who commented during the consultation period. I also thank hon. Members who participated in the debate in the Northern Ireland Committee for the consideration that the Committee has given to the issues.
A significant number of changes have been made to the draft order since the publication of the proposal. I will draw attention to the substantive matters. One of the issues which gave rise to concern was that the proposal included a requirement for those providing child minding


day care to be registered only where the children concerned were under the age of eight. Many considered the age limit in the proposals to be too low. The order will now require registration where the children concerned are under 12.
Concern was expressed that by requiring registration for anyone providing child minding services for more than two hours in any day the order would require registration in circumstances where it would be inappropriate—for example, where a child was looked after for a short period by a neighbour. The order will now require only those providing child minding services for reward to register.

Sir James Kilfedder: I understand that problems have arisen with the operation of the Children Act 1989. Has the Minister made sure that those problems have been dealt with in relation to this order?

Mr. Moss: That is a similar question to the one asked by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), which I answered by saying that if I did not cover the points in my initial speech I would certainly do so in winding up the debate. If the order goes through today—I am led to believe that there is all-party support for it—I would expect a period of consultation lasting about a year to build up the regulations. Any difficulties which have occurred in the implementation of the Children Act in England and Wales will certainly be addressed in the way in which we formulate the regulations in Northern Ireland.
Concern was also expressed that by requiring all those providing supervised activity to be registered the proposal would place an unreasonable burden on some organisations. This point was raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). The order will now enable the Department of Health and Social Services to make regulations exempting certain supervised activities from registration requirements.
The Government recognise the importance of voluntary organisations in the provision of services to children in Northern Ireland. While we wish to ensure, through regulation and inspection, that voluntary homes for children maintain a high standard, we have decided that the imposition of registration and inspection fees would place an undesirable burden on voluntary organisations. We have therefore dropped those provisions from the draft order. The provision for fees to be imposed on those providing child minding and day care services has also been dropped.
In response to the concerns raised in Committee that a children's home for fewer than four children would not be required to register, a change has been made to ensure that all children's homes will be subject to registration, regardless of the number of children. A change has also been made to article 21 to ensure that where a health and social services board or trust provides accommodation for a child, this should be in a proper care setting.
A large number of drafting and technical changes have been made since the publication of the proposal. Many of them relate to changes brought about by the Health and Personal Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which provided that the statutory functions of health and social services boards may be discharged by trusts. The remaining substantive changes include changes to the jurisdictional arrangements designed primarily to ensure that appeals from magistrates courts will lie to the county

court rather than to the High Court, and additional provision to allow for the establishment of care units within existing training school complexes.
One final and most important addition to the order has been made in recognition of the fact that hon. Members and others will have a continuing interest in the new legislation. The order will now provide for an annual report to be published by the Department of Health and Social Services in consultation with the Lord Chancellor, the Department of Education and the Department of Finance and Personnel.
The order is the first step towards providing Northern Ireland with a modern framework of child care law. Much remains to be done to give effect to the new legislation, and we are keen to see that process under way. I look forward to hearing the views of hon. Members. I am confident that the order will have widespread support and that the changes to which I have referred will be welcomed. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Paul Murphy: The House will welcome the comments of the Minister and also, of course, the changes that have been made. Hon. Members will also welcome the fact that—at last—the order is before the House.
During the past few months, Northern Ireland has dominated the news and this House so far as the peace process is concerned, and it is inevitable and natural that that should be so. But sometimes in talking about that we tend to forget that in Northern Ireland—as in Wales, England and Scotland—the quality of life of the people has to be discussed. That has been forgotten as far as Northern Ireland is concerned.
Life goes on. Children have to be educated. Hospitals have to be built. Jobs have to be provided. There is no question but that the vast majority of people living in these islands believe that the quality of children's lives, the need to stop exploitation and prevent abuse, and the need to educate and prepare children for the future must lie at the basis of our beliefs.
We welcome the order, but we wonder why it has taken so long to appear. After all, six years have intervened between the Children Act 1989 and the order for Northern Ireland today. Indeed, there have been 16 years of discussion since the matters were originally discussed on various professional committees. The Minister said that there would be yet another year of consultation. I hope that that consultation does not mean that implementation of the legislation will be held up. That is very important.
I understand that the United Nations committee on the rights of the child has already said that the delay has disadvantaged children in Northern Ireland especially in view of the levels of poverty in the Province. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is important to put on record our congratulations to all the people and bodies in Northern Ireland who have badgered the Government and pushed the importance of the order. Child care professionals and members of the voluntary sector have worked so long in a statutory vacuum. The children's organisations in Northern Ireland have influenced the shape of the order. The Children Order Group, which was formed by people from the public and voluntary sectors of child care to work on the drafting and shadowing of


the legislation, deserves the particular thanks of all Members of the House of Commons and especially those who represent Northern Ireland.
I put on record the special thanks of the Labour party to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who spoke on Northern Irish matters until recently. He was instrumental in ensuring that small private children's homes of four children or fewer would be required to be registered. I am delighted that the Minister made reference to that this evening. We also welcome the removal of the registration fee, which the Minister has stated will be further changed.
We are worried about the lack of a common strategy in implementing the order, especially when so many bodies and agencies in Northern Ireland, including social services, education, housing and leisure services, have to work together. It is important that joint planning by relevant Government Departments in Northern Ireland and those agencies, local authorities and bodies should be a matter of priority for the Government.
We are worried about trusts and their lack of accountability. We often hear about the quango state. In my constituency in Wales and in the rest of Britain there is great disquiet about the growing number of quangos and the non-elected members of those boards. There are four health and social services boards in Northern Ireland, with 12 community units. Six trusts have already been established. I am given to understand that the Government are insisting that the other six must now apply for trust status. That is a mistake. Nowhere else in the United Kingdom are social services administered by trusts. They are generally administered by people who are elected by the people. It would be a bad move.
In a sense, Northern Ireland has been treated as a guinea pig on trusts. We had the poll tax in Scotland and local government reform in Wales. Now we have social services trusts in Northern Ireland. I hope that the areas on the fringe of the United Kingdom will not be used as testing grounds for Government philosophy. I would be disappointed if that were the case. We do not want to see the fragmentation of the child care system in Northern Ireland. A single Northern Ireland body, not the number of bodies that the Minister suggests, should look after child care.
The Minister did not say much about resources. So often in the past decade or so Acts of Parliament have been passed with all the good intentions in the world but the money has not been there to service them. It is wholly pointless to pass legislation setting up a plethora of bodies if the money does not come from central Government, in this case to Northern Ireland, to implement the legislation.
There is one advantage in looking at what has occurred under the Children Act 1989 in Britain. We can see what it has cost local authorities. There is not a shadow of doubt that the costs of social services departments in local authorities throughout Britain have increased. They have rightly done so as a result of the imposition of new legislation by the House. I hope that the Minister will tell us precisely what money is being made available to ensure that aspects of the order which are to be implemented as soon as it is passed by the House are properly resourced.
It is absolutely necessary that family support services, family centres, pre-school and after-school care, holidays, support from social workers and health visitors, preventive work, and so on are properly resourced if only because, like many parts of Britain, Northern Ireland—especially its children and young people—is severely socially deprived. I will not go through all the statistics, but I will give a few. In Northern Ireland, 27 per cent. of the population is under 18 years of age. That is a higher proportion than in Britain. There is a high birth rate in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, 19 per cent. of families are headed by a lone parent and 95,000 children live in lone-parent families. Some 62,000 households with dependent children were in receipt of income support in 1992. Northern Ireland has the highest level of unemployment and the lowest level of average growth in disposable weekly household income. Poverty is possibly worse in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland certainly has the lowest level of state provision of pre-school places in Britain.
If we take all those factors into account, it is clear that the need for family support in Northern Ireland must be greater than in any other part of Britain. It has been estimated that at least £20 million extra must be spent in Northern Ireland on that aspect of child provision alone. When we add to that a further £6 million for children with disabilities and another £3 million for other aspects of the legislation, a total of £45 million is needed. That is the estimate of the professionals who work on the ground, so to speak, in Northern Ireland. That is what it will cost for the legislation to be implemented properly.
We can give figures because we have the experience of Britain. In one London borough with a population of just under 200,000, a 51 per cent. increase in the budget was needed to deal with the Children Act 1989. That amounted to about £4 million in one London borough alone. In that borough, there was a 36 per cent. increase in social work time, a 114 per cent. increase in home and day care support and a 45 per cent. increase in substitute care. Those are the figures that we have to consider.
We talk about a peace dividend. Money will be saved because, happily, the peace process is continuing in Northern Ireland. Surely that money should go back into the Province to ensure that children are looked after properly. I am sure that everyone would agree that there is no better place for money from the peace dividend to go than into the protection of children.
The professionals in Northern Ireland have also expressed worries about court organisation, exclusion orders and emergency protection orders. I hope that the Minister will refer to those matters and give assurances to those who have to deal with those problems. I am glad that he said that there would be a proper annual report to the House of Commons. That is excellent. It was missing from the original legislation. There is a case for some monitoring to take place in Northern Ireland. I hope that that will be taken into account in the consultation process in the next few months.
Northern Ireland has had 25 years of misery with all the troubles. In all that time, the people who have worked in the care and protection of children must have had the worst and hardest time of child care professionals in any part of the United Kingdom. Their morale will be boosted


by the passing of the order, but only if it is passed with consequential increases in the resources necessary to make it work properly.
We welcome all that is included in the order. Work still needs to be done. Changing needs and circumstances should be reflected both in the resources and, if necessary, in further legislation. At least this is a start. Even though years have passed, the Minister can be assured that he has the good will and support of the Opposition in the legislation before us today.

Rev. William McCrea: I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for bringing the order to the House tonight. It has been awaited for a long time and with keen interest by all bodies involved in the care of children. I also put on record our deep appreciation of the courtesy shown by Baroness Denton when she received the elected representatives and our deep appreciation of her personal interest in this need of the Province. I am sure that the Minister will ensure that our thanks are passed on to his noble Friend.
I also take this opportunity to thank the Children Order Group which represents various organisations with a wide range of experience and expertise. Its constructive comments were a tremendous help not only to me, but to other health spokesmen of the parties represented in the House. These organisations did the children of the Province a signal service in gelling together their comments and presenting a cohesive argument for action by the Minister.
All those involved in the care of children, from both the voluntary and statutory sectors in Northern Ireland, broadly welcome the order. They acknowledge that many of their recommendations have been accepted and are included in the order. However, they regret that other key matters have been left out. It is felt, for example, that the opportunity to learn lessons from the implementation of the Children Act 1989 in England and Wales has not been fully taken. It is hoped, however, that any relevant and appropriate amendments made to that Act will also be made to this important order without delay.
One of the recommendations made by the Children Order Group was that there should be provision for an exclusion order to oust from the home a parent or caretaker who is suspected of abusing a child. That recommendation was not accepted by the Minister although it had the support of the Children Act advisory committee in its 1992–93 annual report. As this opportunity has been missed, can the Minister assure me that if the law in England and Wales is amended, a similar amendment will immediately apply to the Province?
Displeasure was also felt at the failure by the Department to make a change in the definition of disability. The definition in the order uses the term 'deaf and dumb". Surely it was not beyond the Department's ability to use other terms. It is hoped that more acceptable terms will be used in the regulations and the guidance.
Two major issues arising from the order will be vital to its success or failure. An order is not, in itself, the end of the matter; rather, it is a very important beginning. It has taken many years and much lobbying to get to this important juncture; we are glad that we have arrived. To ensure success, the Department must give vibrant leadership in carrying forth the vision contained in the

legislation and in putting it into action. Such detailed and complex legislation will not implement itself. It requires proper co-ordination by the Department and it demands effective planning from the beginning. The Department must display initiative and leadership skills. Those within the Department who front the implementation of the order will carry a heavy responsibility in ensuring its success. Half-hearted leadership will make the community resentful because those people will have been filled with expectations without having them realised.
Some people in the statutory and voluntary sectors have serious doubts about the Department's approach as they fail to see a strategy for implementing the order. Surely it is appropriate that statutory agencies work to a common agenda. Social services, education, housing and leisure services all have a range of responsibilities under the order. Only by joint planning within Government Departments can operational effectiveness be achieved. I trust that the Minister can assure the House tonight that the order will be put into operation with determination and that no effort will be spared in making it work effectively and efficiently.
The various Departments have had knowledge of the progress of this legislation; they are not starting from tonight. We expect, therefore, that much of the groundwork has been done in terms of co-ordination and planning so that it is ready for smooth implementation. When did this co-ordinated departmental planning begin? Can the Minister assure me that all the Departments are ready for action? I was a little concerned when I heard the Minister mention another year. That has caused me concern and will worry interested bodies and those who are keen to move forward because we have waited so long to get this legislation. We expected that the Departments involved would want to move forward. Urgent implementation is essential.
The second area of concern, the resources issue, is vital to the order's success. The provisions in the order, especially those relating to children in need, must not be hampered from the outset by a lack of resources. Indeed, having studied documents relating to the matter, I am certain that considerable resources will be needed to finance the order because of the low baseline of the preventive services being operated in Northern Ireland.
I am sure that the Minister can understand the hopes raised for children and families by the order. Those hopes cannot become a reality without essential investment from Government. This point is vital. The present level of funding is inadequate. We dare not rob Peter to pay Paul in this operation. The demand is clearly for a commitment from the Minister.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman talks about robbing Peter to pay Paul. Does he agree that it is a mistake to think that under our combined health and social services system, money can be moved around more easily? The reality is that the big battalions gather a greater percentage of the money. In view of the recent news of the money needed to develop the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast, is he fearful that not only other hospital services, but the social services budget could suffer?

Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. What he says causes grave concern. I know that there will be a scrabble for resources and that there will be in-fighting to try to win resources. The order


is something above the resources already allocated. It is vital that we get additional resources because without them, it will not take the House or the Province long to realise that the order is pie in the sky. We shall have an order, but we shall not be able to put it into effect. It is vital that the Minister gives tonight a commitment that there will be extra money to implement the order.
The order emphasises supporting families who care for their children in the home; that is not a soft and easy financial option. The order endeavours to develop a preventive framework for families rather than relying solely on child protection. Unfortunately, during the past year, family support, day care and after care services have been poorly developed and underfunded, and have been provided in the main by the voluntary sector.
I put on record that the people of the Province owe a tremendous debt to the voluntary sector for all its efforts over the years. It has made those efforts with few resources at its disposal. If we are really to support and strengthen families, new funding is an urgent must. Family support services are in urgent need of development in Northern Ireland.
I make no apology for relying on the expertise of the Children Order Group to advise me on the details that need attention. I genuinely feel that it is evident to all in society that, over the years, preventive work with families has been neglected in Northern Ireland and that the high rates of poverty and deprivation experienced by many in the Province make the need more pressing than any other matter within the United Kingdom.
The population of Northern Ireland has a higher proportion of children than any other region of the United Kingdom. Statistics provided for me amply express the need. For example, 19 per cent. of families in Northern Ireland are headed by a lone parent; 95,000 children live in lone-parent families; 33,000 lone parents receive lone parent support; and at least 62,000 households with dependent children receive income support. Northern Ireland has the highest unemployment and the lowest average growth in disposable weekly household income, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). Northern Ireland has the lowest state pre-school provision in Europe.
When all those and many other adverse factors are considered, it is not surprising that the odds on a child coming into care are one in 10 compared with one in 7,000 if those factors are not present. Resources, therefore, will be an essential ingredient in the success of the action proposed in the legislation. The House welcomes the legislation that has been brought before it but resources are required to enable many aspects of it to be implemented, for example the registration and inspection of day care centres, child minders and children's homes, as outlined in the order. There are already long waiting lists for registration.
Another area requiring resources is the accommodation necessary to meet the needs of young people within the community and those leaving care. The order requires health and social services boards to provide for such, if they feel that the young people's welfare is likely to be seriously prejudiced by failure to provide accommodation. The number of people in that category is greatly

increasing year by year, and the budget to cover that must be adequately financed if the order is not to remain meaningless.
The order regards children with disabilities as children in need and sets out statutory obligations towards them, not only in service provision but in the promotion of opportunities for such children to lead as normal a life as possible. To take steps to fulfil the obligations under that part of the order will cost some £6 million, covering day care and after-school care. It is essential that such provision for the disabled is properly co-ordinated across the Province lest we are left with the current patchy, haphazard approach.
Taken as a whole, the order is complex and deserves the closest possible scrutiny. I am glad that, in Committee and now on the Floor of the House, we can comment on it. I have no doubt that it covers a wide remit concerning both collective and individual responsibilities for children. It therefore requires a partnership approach between parents and statutory and voluntary bodies.
The order demands a proactive role by the courts, with legal representations for parents as well as children. It also requires the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the child to deal with all those and other relevant matters. If this legislation is to be carried through, an important area is the appropriate and proper training of staff. Boards will be faced with tremendous costs in addition to all other previous burdens. That begs an important question: will the Minister assure the House that additional money will be made available and earmarked to enable boards to make the order a success?
Resources need to be stable for the foreseeable future. We need not just initial funding but consistent finance linked to careful and detailed long-term planning for the service. I am concerned that, while we may be given some initial funding to prime the pump, the boards may be left to find funding in years to come. We shall then return to patchy provision throughout the Province.
It is important to put on record tonight that the health and social services boards have estimated that they require approximately £45 million to implement the Children (Northern Ireland) Order fully. When I saw that, I thought that it was a lot of money. But I was present during the previous debate on local government finance in Wales. I listened carefully to the Minister's reply, when he stated that £43 million had been set aside in the Welsh budget to finance local government reorganisation, which is one of the Government's pet subjects. If £43 million can be set aside to fulfil Government policy on reorganising local government in Wales, there will be little problem for the Secretary of State in getting £45 million—if he can get only £43 million I suppose that I could be pushed to accept it—for Northern Ireland.
There is no reason why the Minister cannot make a clear commitment properly to implement the order. Funding is essential not only for health and social services boards but for Departments inter-related in the order's operation, such as the Department of Education, which also needs additional funding to ensure that the measure is meaningful.
What recognition has the Minister given to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which has expressed concern that there is no effective independent co-ordination mechanism for ensuring the convention's


implementation in United Kingdom law, policy and practice? Has he recommendations to make to the House on that matter?
The order is important and I seek to take nothing away from the broad welcome that many hon. Members have given it, or from the Minister in presenting it to the House tonight. Two key issues have been raised in the debate: first, leadership in implementation; and secondly, resources to make implementation possible. How the Government react to those will reflect overall Government policy towards our most precious investment—our children. I earnestly trust that this golden opportunity to make a vital difference will be grasped willingly and prove to the world that we cherish our children whom the scriptures tell us are the heritage of the Lord.
I have already told the Minister that, unfortunately, an urgent constituency matter has arisen and I must return to my constituency as soon as possible. I therefore mean no discourtesy to the House by leaving. I shall read carefully every response that the Minister makes. Even though I shall not be present, I trust that the Minister will carefully take matters I have raised on board, because they will make all the difference for the children of our Province.

Rev. Martin Smyth: This is an historic occasion in many ways. It takes us back through the history of child care in the United Kingdom to the Children Act 1908, which was the starting point for the care of children. It was a landmark in the development of policy in the United Kingdom. It is significant that it remained the principal Act in Northern Ireland until 1950, so it cannot be said that we rush things too much. The pattern of developing child care legislation is still continuing. It is interesting to note that under the 1908 Act the interests of the child were not the most important; rather parents could not be deprived of their rights unless they were found guilty in some sense. I believe that the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 is a new landmark because the emphasis is placed on the child rather than the adult, who has certain responsibilities.
The order is historic for other reasons, not least because it has had a long gestation. The children and young people review group, known as the Black committee, which was established in 1976, published its findings in December 1979. It is 12 years since I came to the House, so we have been pressing for almost 13 years for the implementation of the Black committee recommendations.
We had a fair bit of discussion on the order in the Northern Ireland Committee and subsequent discussions with Baroness Denton, who proved not only to be a listening Minister, but a heeding one. The reaction to those discussions was welcome. I welcome without hesitation the changes that have been made to the order as a result. In Committee, however, we pressed that we should take on board some of the lessons learnt from the implementation of the Children Act 1989 of England and Wales. I hope that before the end of the debate the Minister will gain further inspiration and tell us what lessons have been learnt from England, or whether no lessons can be learnt. If that is the perception of advisers, it does not match that of professionals. It is important that we do not wait too long before the order is implemented.
Today's debate is historic, because although the debate in Committee was on the original draft proposals, we could have had today's debate in Committee as well. That

debate would have been noted by a few enthusiasts, but by recording today's debate in Hansard, people will learn much more easily about some of our concerns. That is the best that we can do with this type of legislation.
We should have had the opportunity to examine the order in Committee, line by line, clause by clause, so that we could have amended it. All that we can do tonight is stupidly vote down the order. Since the Government introduced it and we have waited for it for such a long time, we would not want to do that, not least because the Government have a majority and would get it through in any case. In any case, if there was a Division, and I doubt that there will be, my party would vote in favour. We have waited far too long for the order, but to suggest that the order is perfect would imply that it is the only piece of perfect legislation ever to go through any Parliament. Even during my sojourn in the House I have been amazed at how Government Bills have been amended by hundreds of Government amendments, never mind by Opposition pressure to table yet more amendments. The tragedy is we have been unable to scrutinise the order, so a degree of unaccountability has slipped into the machinery of government in Northern Ireland.
I thank the Government for meeting our request to have a debate on the Floor of the House and I welcome the modifications that have already been incorporated into the order. It is proposed that registration will be required governing the supervision of paid staff. I hope, however, that because church volunteers are normally unpaid that does not mean that they do not require supervision. I recognise the tremendous work done by those groups and acknowledge that the standard of it is remarkably high. I welcome the fact that they are not required to be subject to the same registration, but I am sure that the Minister and others would agree that even in such quarters we must watch carefully those who have been entrusted with the care of our young people.
In several areas the views of professionals have been ignored and the Government must take note of that. How will the great changes in the Province be co-ordinated? The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) has already alluded to that. Who will steer the order's implementation through? I am not thinking about the Minister but about those behind-the-scenes co-ordinators. As I understand it, and unless something has happened recently among those who know more about this than some of us, no proper consultation has occurred between the court services, the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Education in Northern Ireland. I understand that little effort has been made up to now to educate the various Government Departments and boards, which all have a part to play in the successful introduction of the order. I admit that members of one of the trusts under the control of the Department of Health and Social Services recently gave a talk on what might be involved. That lack of co-ordination is reflected in the fact that it will take a year to introduce the regulations, whereas we believe that, by now, it should have been possible to implement the order.
The concept of co-ordination, to which the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster referred, relates to links between social services, education, housing and leisure services. Each has responsibilities under the order. Within the Departments, however, there appears to be little understanding of what will be involved and certainly little visible enthusiasm. Social workers responsible for child


care are already stretched to breaking point and they are short-staffed. Because of the lack of co-ordination—I can put it no other way—things are done at one level that have no relevance to those working on the ground. For example, the joint protocol system on child abuse involves the police, social workers and others. They are trained together, yet one trained person from social services was also supposed to be responsible for Kidscape, a vital element in child care. She could not undertake her work on Kidscape for months. She had to look after the joint protocol outwith her area because there were not enough trained folk in the service to undertake that protocol work. I urge the Minister to, as we would say in Ulster, "gee up" such Departments a little and ensure that a system for co-ordinating efforts is introduced.
Some hon. Members have mentioned resources. I would sound one caveat. I am glad that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, has returned to his place. He referred to Northern Ireland being the poorest part of the United Kingdom. It might be the poorest region according to some calculations, but, if one examines the statistics of social surveys, we are not the worst. The hon. Gentleman may have alluded to another poor part of the UK when he referred to the London boroughs problem. However, I believe that the level of deprivation on Merseyside would cause some of us to be thankful that we live in Northern Ireland.
We must be careful when we make comparisons, because sometimes we do not compare like with like. That is not to say that I would argue with the hon. Member for Torfaen about his anxiety about resources, which was echoed by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster. I noticed that the Minister was using his calculator at that moment. We may find out before the end of the debate whether he has come up with an offer or whether he has sent messages to the Treasury so that he may tell us how we might reach the target.
We are all familiar nowadays with tight budgets and the need for effective and efficient use of public money, and few people would disagree with that requirement. However, there is genuine anxiety that the effective implementation of the order will be hampered by a lack of available resources.
That is one reason why we ask what lessons have been learnt from the implementation of the Children Act 1989 in England, and which parts of that Act have not been implemented; for I do not want the House to go down the road of our Italian colleagues in the European Union, who have an art of passing legislation but not implementing it. When they are asked, "What do you do about this?" they reply, "We have it!" but the folk who require it have not had it. The legislation has not been implemented. We do not want to go down that road. We want to go down the road where there is implementation.
The emphasis in the order is on supporting families to care for their children at home—developing a preventive framework for families rather than relying solely on child protection. We have heard that, in Northern Ireland, family support day care and after-care services are poorly developed, underfunded and provided mainly by the voluntary sector. Indeed, much of those services continue

to be provided in places by the extended family. That level of community care is to be welcomed, but it is not an excuse for society to abrogate its responsibilities.
We ask, not rhetorically but factually, how can that requirement in the order be fulfilled without appropriate and adequate resources—resources not provided in the current plan? That might be the reason why the regulations will not come into force for a year; it might enable us to reach the next financial year.
The euphemism of a three-year start-up is but a euphemism. It highlights the problem. The early years development scheme has been promised £310,000 for three years, which appears to be a sizeable amount, but there were already 180 applicants to that scheme alone in response to a public advertisement in a newspaper.
The order brings in the much-welcomed registration and inspection of day care, child minders and children's homes. There are already long waiting lists for registration, as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster said, and adequate funds to support the measure are not provided.
Under the order, health and social services boards are required for the first time to provide accommodation if children's welfare is likely to be seriously prejudiced by a failure to provide accommodation. That is not simply accommodation in Housing Executive property but accommodation with care; yet evidence from England and Wales demonstrates that 96 per cent. of social services departments considered that they had inadequate resources to comply with that aspect of the Children Act 1989.
If the measures in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order are to function in the way in which they are intended to, adequate funding must be made available. Stable resources and strategic long-term planning are needed.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster referred to the concept of a lack of definition of disability. Surely the Government and those who have advised them should by now be aware of the reaction among those who are disabled and their supporters when we use such outdated terminology. It is a patronising approach to people with disabilities.
I ask that Ministers make a commitment tonight that the terminology will be amended, not simply when the amendments are made to the Children Act 1989, but as soon as possible. That commitment was given earlier, when the Government were pressed from the Ulster Unionist Bench about the Wildlife and Countryside (Registration and Ringing of Certain Captive Birds) (Amendment) Regulations 1984, when they were caught with their pants down, if I might use that metaphor, not having done their homework properly. They gave us that commitment on that occasion.
The exclusion orders are there, and many child care organisations have emphasised the importance of introducing them, but to introduce them so that the abuser, rather than the victim, is removed from the home environment. The Minister referred to the fact that the child would be removed only as a last resort, but sometimes we forget the links between children and parents.
I remember speaking to a colleague who had a problem with a father who was not the best type of father. I asked him, to help me in my pastoral work, "By the way, how did you react to your father's death?" I shall never forget his words. He said, "He was my father." To take a child from home, or, for that matter, to move a mother and child from home into a hostel, with all the degradation that that can be


associated with, is not the way, in the 20th century, to care for children who are being abused. I believe that the abuser, whether it be father or mother, should be removed from the home, even temporarily, until things can be sorted out rather than uprooting a child from its roots, from the environment that it knows so well.
I know that those of us who travel become used to strange places, but I think that you will agree with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, even for those of us who travel, no matter where we roam, there is no place like home. If it is true for us, how much truer it is for a child. regret that the Government have ignored the wisdom of that key measure.
As I draw to a close, 1 consider several other matters, especially the concept of guardian ad litem. The Black committee recommended that a guardian ad litem be appointed to safeguard the children's interests. That has emerged repeatedly. Even in 1987, the Northern Ireland Adoption Order, which was implemented in 1989, did not make the guardian ad !item role independent of the agencies. One area board can still be the placement agency and provide the guardian ad litem report. Admittedly, the boards try to ensure that the guardian ad litem is not an officer for the same placement district. That at least is an attempt to do something about it.
However, we live in a small world. The people work in the same services. They might even be wanting promotion. The human reaction is not to trample over people when trying to climb up, so as to avoid problems with them when falling down. It is equally true that one should not start arguing with the boss who might be on the interviewing panel for promotion. There is not the degree of independence required of somebody who is there to protect the child's interests.
I regret that the recommendation does not seem to have been taken up. Admittedly, there has been a limited introduction of the guardian ad litem system. It seems unfair that, where a parental dispute has gone to private law, the rights of a child to independent representation are not recognised. Will the Minister reconsider the decision not to extend the guardian ad litem system to cover private law cases?
I understand that the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee has kept reviewing the implementation of the Children Act 1989. But up to now there has been little evidence that the lessons learnt from that Act have been applied. At the British Association of Social Workers conference in Northern Ireland on the subject not long ago, it was suggested that there was no strong sense of leadership in that area. I understand that the management executive was represented on the co-ordinating body, which also included the chief social services inspector and the deputy director of court services, but there was no education representative. The question was asked: how do the professionals in that sector feed into the organisation?
On 22 November there was, apparently, a stab at setting up an implementation group, but its functions and membership are not yet clear. I believe that it has met once and that working groups in different sectors are being set up to provide guidance and regulation. That might explain why it will be a year before we get anything.
The four boards are now invited to participate, but where do the voluntary groups fit in? At a time when the provision of child care is increasingly coming from the voluntary and private sectors, surely voluntary groups

should be involved in the discussions at an earlier stage. In east Belfast it is proposed to close Firbreck children's home—a statutory home with places for 12. The figures show that the statutory home costs about £500 per child. The voluntary home costs about £1,000 per child. The voluntary home is large, taking 30 or 32 people, but only half its places are filled and the costs are much higher. Why is it that a statutory home, which provides a useful and excellent service, is being closed? At Christmas, its 12 spaces were occupied by 14 people. Nobody can deny that there is a need for such care and, when the order is implemented, the need to co-ordinate it effectively will be even greater.

Dr. Joe Hendron: I thank the Minister for introducing this important legislation. I was delighted that he used a calculator earlier. I hope that that is a good omen for the finances involved in the implementation of the order. Naturally, I am delighted to support the order. I wish to congratulate all those organisations in Northern Ireland which have made such a significant contribution to the debate over the past couple of years. They include the Children Order Group, which has already been mentioned, Child Care, Gingerbread and the Save the Children Fund.
I have been in medical practice in Northern Ireland for more than 30 years and I should like to think that I have first-hand experience of the deprivation of my constituents and patients. That deprivation extends not merely to west Belfast, but to sections of north, south and east Belfast, as well as other parts of Northern Ireland. The deprivation is concentrated in west and north Belfast where, according to the registrar general's classification, most of the population comes from social class groups 4 and 5. By any criteria of social deprivation, west and north Belfast have suffered greatly.
The debate is about family poverty—children, their needs and how they have been treated in various ways over the years. In west and north Belfast, more people have died through violence over the past 20 years than anywhere else in western Europe, excluding the terrible conflict in Bosnia. There are more people on social security benefits, and there are probably more people with alcohol problems and illnesses.
Unfortunately, I do not have the figures in front of me, but childhood illness, even asthma, occurs more among those in deprived areas than elsewhere. There are also more children coming under the influence of paramilitary organisations. All those factors have an important effect on children, especially when they reach 12 or 13 years of age.
The Save the Children Fund has done great work over the years in highlighting the problems involved in the care of children. Both the voluntary and statutory sectors in Northern Ireland have broadly welcomed the order and will be pleased for it to pass on to the statute book. But the Save the Children Fund believes that it is important that, rather than simply paralleling the Children Act, lessons should be learnt from its implementation in England and Wales and applied in Northern Ireland, through the regulations and guidance drawn up for the implementation of the order.
There are two main issues: the success of the order in practice and ensuring that the outstanding issues raised by the United Nations committee on the rights of the child


are monitored and considered in future. There is a need for resources—about which much has rightly been said—and the need to extend the philosophy and principles underpinning the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and the order to other areas of law, policy and practice affecting children. There is concern that the effect of implementing the order will be hampered by lack of available resources. Further resources will be required to enable the registration and inspection of day care, child minders and children's homes as outlined in the order.
I believe that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned the accommodation needs of young people in the community and of those leaving care. Those needs must be seriously considered.
In its concluding observations following the examination of the UK Government's first report on the implementation of the convention in the UK, the UN committee on the rights of the child raised a number of issues which are pertinent to the welfare of children. If left unaddressed, those issues could restrict the effectiveness of the order. The committee expressed concern that there was no effective independent co-ordinating mechanism for ensuring the implementation of the convention in UK law, policy and practice. The order is very much in keeping with the UN convention, particularly in its emphasis on seeking the core principles—ensuring that children's best interests are safeguarded and ensuring that children can express their views and have them taken into account.
The subject of co-ordination is so important that I have no doubt that all the public representatives involved in the debate—especially those of us in Northern Ireland—will consider it carefully. I appreciate that the Minister cannot do that himself, but I am sure that some organisation or person will co-ordinate all those services. We are concerned that children who are placed in care in Northern Ireland under the social welfare system may be sent to training schools which are institutions for the detention of children.
Much has been said about the Children Order Group. I am personally indebted to that group, which has done much work in this area and has provided us with valuable documentation. The group largely comprises social workers. The hon. Member for Belfast, South spoke forcefully about the physical and sexual abuse of children. I believe that social workers, not just in Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom, have performed outstanding work in that area. Unfortunately, sometimes chances must be taken in allowing children to return to the home or to visit a particular relative and, when things go wrong, social workers seem to take most of the blame. In my experience—which has been gained over many years—social workers, health visitors, nurses and all those who work with children through the statutory and voluntary services do an outstanding job.
The Children Order Group pointed out that a lack of commitment by Government in implementing the legislation is evidenced by continual delays in bringing forward the order. I understand there may be a further delay of one year, but perhaps it cannot be helped.
The United Kingdom Government have been criticised by the United Nations committee on the rights of the child. The delay of more than five years between. the Children Act 1989 for England and Wales and the

introduction of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order has disadvantaged children in Northern Ireland. Despite strenuous complaints by statutory and voluntary bodies, the Government have no apparent strategy for implementing the order. I know that the Minister will address those important points.
Successful implementation of the order will depend upon a number of statutory agencies working to a common strategy. Social services, education, housing and leisure services will all have responsibilities under the order. However, at present there is no evidence of joint planning by the Government Departments which are responsible for those services.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) made the point about additional funding. We are aware of the funding problems within the trusts and health boards, especially the Eastern health board. I am also aware of the financial problems within the west and north Belfast trusts. I do not criticise the executives or the staff who work for those bodies, but funding levels are very important. Other hon. Members have already emphasised that point.
We will be watching for co-ordination among the bodies responsible for implementing the order. At the end of the day, the Minister must use his calculator and, together with his colleagues, ensure that there is enough funding to implement this extremely important piece of legislation.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I apologise for missing most of the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and some of the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). What I did hear, I fully endorse and wish to be associated with.
I suspect that this important debate will not be reported in the press because the subject does not make news headlines. As an English Member of Parliament, I will use this occasion to acknowledge the diligent work of all 17 Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland. They perform the same duties as other hon. Members, while addressing and accommodating additional constitutional and security problems. I hope that I do not sound patronising as I wish to acknowledge their role. I do not think that it is often commented on or properly understood by the media.
I believe that the order is a farce in law-making terms. I am interested in scrutiny in this place, and this process is a charade. We would be taking the mickey to suggest that we are performing a proper law-making role this evening. It is a nonsense and I am not prepared to acquiesce, by my silence, to this charade.
In every other context, an order of this size would constitute an Act of Parliament. It is a nonsense to suggest that we are paying adequate attention to the contents of the document, or indeed to the people who will, we hope, benefit from it. Regardless of whether there is a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland, so long as we are responsible for making orders in this place that affect Northern Ireland we must ensure that they are examined properly and on the same basis as legislation for England, Wales and Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) referred to "Great Britain" legislation, but I think that he meant legislation for England and Wales. At present, the House of Commons is considering the Children (Scotland) Bill in Committee. That legislation parallels this order and it is being dealt with line by line. Hon. Members are able to probe every detail, and that is the correct procedure. However, that process is not followed for Northern Ireland legislation. That example underlines the nonsense of the situation to which I have referred.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I meant to refer to that point in my speech. Does he accept that the Scottish legislation is a separate corpus of legislation which the House is able to handle well? I do not understand why it is claimed that it cannot handle legislation for Northern Ireland in the same way.

Mr. Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman and I are as one on that point. I hope that the time will come when Northern Ireland legislation is treated in the same way as legislation for Scotland and for other parts of the United Kingdom.
Naturally, hon. Members want to see this order on the statute book. However, I urge them to hang on because I believe there are a few omissions. I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that I have read every page, but I have certainly done my best to scrutinise the document. Unfortunately, it is a vast volume with no pictures, so it takes some time to read.
The document is flawed because it does not take account of the fact that we share a land border with the Irish Republic. Christian denomination and voluntary organisations, as well as statutory organisations, perform many social work duties in Northern Ireland, and I do not think that the document fully takes account of that or the interface with the Republic.
People who have abused children have in the past absconded to the Republic to avoid justice. The Attorney-General recently complained that I had tabled 25 questions about Father Brendan Smyth. I make no apology for that, because it goes to the heart of the Government's stewardship of children's services.
I am critical of the Government on that issue, among many others. I do not think that they ensure good stewardship of social services in Northern Ireland. Not many people lie awake at night worrying about it—except for hon. Members from Northern Ireland and my friends on the Opposition Front Bench—but the Government's stewardship, as represented by the Northern Ireland Office and the Attorney-General, has been shown to be flawed. I think that the Attorney-General has been dilatory in his handling of the celebrated case of Father Brendan Smyth. He has refused to acknowledge that he and the Church have failed the victims of Father Brendan Smyth and their families. It is time to look at why that has occurred. I believe that the legislation should be beefed up to take account of those circumstances.
I am indebted to Ulster Television, which produced the documentary "Suffer Little Children" as part of its Counterpoint series. It was broadcast on 6 October 1994 and it showed how Church and state had failed to ensure justice for children and their families in Northern Ireland. I regret that, so far, the other independent television companies have failed to network this important programme elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I have

tabled an early-day motion suggesting that they should do so. If they did, it would alert other hon. Members to the fact that the justice and social work regimes in Northern Ireland are not satisfactory. I urge hon. Members not only to study that programme, if they have not already seen it, but to support me in the suggestion to independent television companies that it is networked.
The House will be aware that Father Brendan Smyth is now in prison having been found guilty on child sex abuse charges—there is therefore no question of sub judice—of which he had a long history, yet for some time he was able to escape justice by going to the Irish Republic.
I recently asked the Attorney-General a question, but it has not been answered satisfactorily. I asked him to
explain why Cardinal Cahal Daly, in his detailed statement, reported that Brendan Smyth had been interviewed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary early in 1990 in connection with child abuse complaints, that the priest had admitted wrongdoing, but was riot arrested".—[Official Report, 16 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 447.]
The words "admitted wrongdoing" are taken from the cardinal's statement. I therefore want to know why the RUC did not arrest that priest early in 1990. Why did it take from then until 1994 for that man to face trial? We know that he did not abscond to the Irish Republic for many months after that interview. No adequate explanation has been given of the stewardship of this matter by the RUC or the Attorney-General.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It is perfectly proper for the hon. Gentleman to allude to certain cases. This is not the primary cause of this evening's debate, so I hope that he will only make allusions to it rather than further develop any particular case.

Mr. Mackinlay: I always obey everything that you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I very much appreciate your wise counsel and guidance.
The measure is voluminous. If it were English or Scots legislation, the matter to which I am alluding probably would require an entire morning in Committee. I appeal to you to consider my point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I promise that I shall not labour it too long, but this matter probably would have been discussed in Committee and alluded to in consideration of many of the articles. It goes to the heart of whether there is adequate social work support. The hon. Members for Belfast, South and for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) referred to measures to protect children from abuse. The matter has to be aired.
I take your point Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if I can demonstrate that the matter is relevant, I might consider dividing the House because the order is deficient. The parent of one of the victims of Brendan Smyth has raised with me whether the order should, as the lid has been lifted on Brendan Smyth's activities—he is only one example; there are probably others—allow the RUC and the social work authorities that are subject to the order to investigate matters that are some years old. That certainly is the view of the aggrieved parents who feel that the authorities, the Attorney-General, the RUC and, to some extent, the Northern Ireland Office want to keep the matter under drapes and do not want to go back too far. If the order were a Bill, I would move amendments to that effect in Committee.
My second point concerns the Northern Ireland Secretary. I addressed it to him recently in a written parliamentary question. There has been inordinate pressure


from some members of religious communities to prevail upon aggrieved parents of children who have been abused to withdraw their complaints.
My written question referred the Northern Ireland Secretary to the specific case of the parents of one of the victims of Father Brendan Smyth, who were approached by a member of the Norbertine order to see whether they would withdraw their complaint. In fairness to the Northern Ireland Secretary, he wrote back to say that the matter continues to be investigated to see whether there has been an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
Will the Minister give us a progress report on that matter, as it is extremely important in view of the failure of Church and state to protect the interests of those families?
It is documented that the Church knew about the activities of Brendan Smyth, not for months but for years, and covered it up. I am of the Catholic faith, so there can be no suggestion in any sense of my demonstrating any spite. I am proud of my faith. The overwhelming majority of pastors are well-motivated people, but there have been one or two bad eggs and there has been a propensity to cover things up, which I very much regret. These matters need to be brought out into the open.
Obviously, it has been a difficult matter for my friends and colleagues from Northern Ireland to articulate, but I have at all stages kept in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), whose constituency was primarily affected by the matter that I have raised. He and I have worked in concert and I know how concerned he has been about it. In view of the sensitivities in the Province, it is probably better that a lad from Essex raises it rather than one of my colleagues from Northern Ireland, and in that spirit I have done so tonight. The Secretary of State and the Minister really have to address what is happening.
In conclusion, let me endorse the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen made. We hope that there will be a considerable peace dividend. There is much ground for optimism. I believe that we should talk up Northern Ireland. It is a tremendous place to visit, the quality of life there is first class and the hospitality is superb, but it is battered and bruised after 25 years of strife. Children, in particular, have suffered indoctrination as well as the pain and anxiety of the troubles.
Generally, Northern Ireland needs to enjoy the dividend that will come from a reduction in the security services. Those resources need to be reallocated in Northern Ireland, particularly to the national health service and social work. It would be appropriate, prudent and fair if a large amount of those resources were channelled into promoting the welfare of children in the cities, particularly in the constituency of my Labour colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West and other colleagues, who have many inner-city problems and who, in my view, would be Labour Members if they represented other parts of the United Kingdom. I am aware of the problems faced by children in their constituencies.
The Government have an obligation to take advantage of the new atmosphere, to build up cross-community relationships between children—which already exist thanks to the tremendous work that has been started—and

to ensure that children who have suffered as a result of the troubles, poverty or unemployment and everything that flows from them should be the subject of positive discrimination in respect of the distribution of resources now available as a result of the peace dividend.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Paragraph 4(5) of schedule 3 to the order states:
In this paragraph and paragraph 5 'hospital' does not include special accommodation within the meaning of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.
That set me thinking, because I recently received correspondence from constituents about a child with mental illness. I support the measures in the order, in that it will give greater protection for children and consider their needs. However, in the Northern health and social services board area, children under 18 suffering from acute mental illness such as schizophrenia are not provided with proper accommodation in which to undergo psychiatric treatment.
The hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) covers my area, and I make it clear that I make no criticism of the professionalism of the staff who care for people who suffer from mental illness and require psychiatric treatment and care. Their devotion and dedication to patients, young and old, are appreciated by patients later and, during the period of their illness, by patients' parents and relatives.
A 14-year-old constituent of mine had to be placed in Holywell hospital's adult acute admission ward, and later spent one month in the adult male intensive care ward because no alternative in-patient facilities designed and staffed to manage the degree of disturbance presented by seriously ill young persons were available in Northern Ireland.
Skilled and qualified psychiatric nurses should not be expected to treat seriously ill children in wards designed for seriously mentally ill adult patients. I ask the Minister to seek to provide for the children of Northern Ireland special and appropriate accommodation for their medical and psychiatric care. That could be done on an all-Northern Ireland basis, which would be more conducive to early recovery of children suffering from mental illness and undergoing treatment.
I invite the Minister to bring together officials of all health boards in Northern Ireland, to seek funding for specific accommodation in the treatment of mentally ill children. Provision of discrete areas within an adult hospital may be feasible, but it is not considered desirable or best practice. I trust that the Minister will not forget my brief comments but will endeavour to make even better provision.

Mrs. Llin Golding: Some years ago, I spent a memorable holiday in that beautiful country of Ireland. As often happens, there was an Irish promotion week. One shop I visited had labelled everything that one could imagine. There was Irish cheese, Irish butter, Irish cream, local bread, Irish potatoes and shamrocks all over the shop. They had tried desperately to label everything. Some wag had put up an enormous notice, which read, "Think Irish. Buy French beans."
The order reminds me of that notice, because the Government thought about Irish children, but when it came to drawing up the order, they failed to consider the special needs and difficulties facing the Irish people, believing that a rehash of English and Welsh legislation would do.
Northern Ireland's population has a larger proportion of children than any other part of the United Kingdom. It urgently needs concerted help and support, and has been waiting far too long for the order. The Government have rightly been criticised for the delay of five years since the implementation of the Children Act 1989. The stresses and strains of family life in Northern Ireland are apparent for us all to see, yet there have been inexplicable delays and lack of Government commitment to presenting the order.
My hon. Friends the Members for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and the hon. Members for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) raised many concerns. I shall therefore deal with only a few issues, including several not yet mentioned.
The decision that the functions of health and social services boards may be discharged by trusts led many hon. Members to question who will be legally responsible when things go wrong, how consultation will be undertaken and who will he involved. There is obviously a need for accountability when dealing with complex legislation, and that is especially important when children's lives are at risk.
Why could not an article have been added to prevent all child minders or anyone paid to care for children having the right to smack children? The order offers the Government the opportunity to protect some children while they are busy, as the result of a recent court decision, producing guidelines that will allow child minders to smack. A National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children leaflet, recently distributed with Government approval, states that children should not be shaken or smacked. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the age at which a small child can be smacked by a paid child minder. Nothing in the order tells us that.
The lack of independence of guardians ad litem has been frequently raised with me. Clearer guidelines on their duties could have been issued. There is great concern for their independence as well as for an extension of their services and perhaps use in criminal courts.
The procedures for children to give evidence in courts are far from satisfactory. There is growing demand even from the judiciary to implement the recommendations in Judge Pigot's report on video evidence, and for children's evidence to be taken outside the realms of a court. The identifying of children in court should have been prevented by earlier legislation but continues. Stronger wording should be used, to prevent that happening in all courts.
The committee of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child strongly criticised the British Government's lack of social expenditure. It is estimated that 39 per cent. of children in Northern Ireland live in poverty—much higher than the average for the rest of the UK. Northern Ireland also has the highest level of

unemployment and the lowest disposable household incomes. Are the Government prepared to put money into doing something about it?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen said, the health and social services boards have estimated that, to implement the order and provide the necessary training, they will need £20 million for child minders and day care, £6 million for children with disabilities, £3 million for child protection and £2 million for children leaving care—a total of £45 million. That sum does not take into account the changes in court services, which will also be very expensive. Will the Government provide all that money?
If the Government really want to do something to help, they should consider carefully the United Nations committee's report on the effect of the emergency legislation on the children of Northern Ireland and its criticism of the outrageous power to hold children as young as 10 for seven days without charge. The Government should also examine children's complete lack of confidence in that system.
The need for support for the teaching of the Irish language was also mentioned. So much has been done to keep alive the languages and traditions of Wales and Scotland; why has not the same been done in Northern Ireland?
The UN committee was also disturbed by reports of physical and sexual abuse of children, as has been mentioned. It was concerned about secure training orders and children placed in training schools in Northern Ireland. It also mentioned gipsy and travelling children, especially with regard to their access to basic services such as education. The report discussed the need to establish an independent mechanism for the monitoring of the Children Act 1989 and the convention on the rights of the child; the need for children to have a greater voice in decisions affecting them; and the need for urgent race relations legislation in Northern Ireland. Those are just a few of the matters mentioned in the UN committee report, which should have been considered when the order was finally drafted.
I have been brief to allow the Minister time to respond. Many things could have been done to improve the Children Act 1989. It is not good enough virtually to repeat the legislation that came into force more than five years ago. Times have changed and flaws in the legislation have been identified. The Government should have taken this opportunity to strengthen the Act and to think about the needs of the Irish people. My advice to the Minister when he embarks on his one-year consultation is, "Think Irish, not French beans."

Mr. Moss: We have had a very good debate. Of course, this is the final debate on the order which, as was rightly pointed out, has been gestating for a considerable time. The order is lengthy and complex and its preparation has involved a great deal of work. The Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland, the Office of Law Reform, the Department of Education, the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland court service have also been involved.
The order was first published in July 1993, with a longer than usual consultation period of three months. We were then asked for an extension, which we gave, until the end of November 1993. The order was debated in


February last year in the Northern Ireland Committee by many hon. Members who have contributed to this evening's debate, and many changes were suggested. Baroness Denton invited all members of the Northern Ireland Committee to discuss amendments to the order with her. Some took her up on that invitation and, has been said several times, she listened carefully and suggested about 11 amendments.
One of the main issues raised this evening was that of resources. Among those who mentioned resources were the hon. Members for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron). We accept that implementation of the order will have resource implications for boards and trusts in Northern Ireland. It will replace the existing legislative framework and, of course, account needs to be taken of the resources already deployed and of the development of child care services already in hand.
It is recognised, nevertheless, that additional resources will need to be deployed in certain areas over a period, before and after the order comes into operation. Much of the expenditure involved will not begin to arise until the next financial year 1996–97, when we envisage the order coming into operation, and will be spread over a number of years as services develop in line with boards' and trusts' child care trusts plans. Even before that, however, a large number of staff in the health and social services boards and trusts will require training, a point raised by, among others, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster. Those involved in the voluntary sector will also require training and the Department of Health and Social Services will provide support for that.
Resources will also be required in relation to the new requirement to appoint guardians ad litem in care and care-related proceedings. Additional funds of up to £2 million will be made available in the current year to cover training in the new legislation and the start-up costs for the guardian ad litem service.
Reference has been made to the fact that the Government have less than wholehearted support for resource provision in Northern Ireland in the sphere of health and personal social services. Resources are limited but, even in the face of competing priorities, the Government have increased resources for HPSS every year. Overall expenditure on HPSS in Northern Ireland will total £1,510 million in 1995–96, an increase of 5.4 per cent. in cash terms or 2 per cent. in real terms over the 1994–95 forecast outturn. Hon. Members who referred to my calculator now know what I was doing.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Did the Minister also calculate why, when it is Government policy to shift to care in the community, there have been cuts in the south and east trust area for Belfast?

Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman can write to me about any specific lack of resources in a particular trust and I shall certainly look into that. However, I can say in all honesty that I am not aware of a lack of resources for community care in any trust in Northern Ireland.
I was talking about overall expenditure. In Northern Ireland, it has increased an impressive 55 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80.
A number of hon. Members also mentioned the key issue of implementation.

Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way before he finishes with the issue of resources. It is very important that we heard that £2 million is being made available for the setting up and implementation of the new legislation, but what about the figure suggested by those who work in social services in Northern Ireland? They believe that, in the years to come—perhaps three, four or five years ahead—and in view of the experience of England and Wales, on a pro rata basis more than £40 million extra will be required specifically to implement the order.

Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman gave some figures in his speech. I added them up, and they came to £29 million. A sentence later, the total had risen to £45 million. I have seen the same briefing from various parties as the hon. Gentleman, and it seems to me that the figure grows and grows, like Topsy.
The honest answer is that we do not know exactly how much the measure will cost to implement. What we are saying is that we are starting to spend the money now. The hon. Gentleman will know how Government spending is organised: each year, the public expenditure survey takes on board the bids from each Department for the necessary expenditure. We shall build into next year's HPSS public expenditure round sufficient bids to implement the policy during the intervening years, but it will take at least a year for many of the regulations to be published and consulted on. We already have a mound of paper which will be submitted for consultation fairly soon.
To those who ask for commitment, I can give the commitment that we intend to press on as quickly as possible to organise the regulations and ensure that the order is up and running in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Murphy: Although exact comparisons cannot be made between London boroughs and towns and cities in Northern Ireland, surely the Northern Ireland Office is taking account of what has happened in England and Wales over the past six years. Surely it can examine the figures and make a proper comparison. Clearly, the Minister cannot specify the cost of implementation to the nearest million, but surely some figures will emerge. There is no question of a "bid"; the order presumably has the backing of the Treasury and the entire Cabinet, and if it is to be implemented the money must go with it.

Mr. Moss: It does not work quite like that. We shall, as usual, be making our bids in the public expenditure survey round for next year and the year after; we shall make proper costings, and we shall take the experience of England and Wales into account in the implementation of the Children Act.
We also recognise that the implementation will have an impact on a wide range of agencies. That point has been raised by a number of hon. Members. It is intended that the implementation will be carried out under the overall direction of a project board comprising representatives from the Department of Health and Social Services, including the management executive, the chief inspector of social services and the Northern Ireland court service.
In addition, there will be a broadly based implementation steering group, which has already been set up to co-ordinate the plans of the wide range of


agencies with key roles in the order's implementation. That group includes representatives from the health and social services boards, the voluntary child care sector, the Department of Education, the police and the legal profession.
I remind hon. Members that it took about two years to bring the Children Act into operation here in England and Wales. We hope to proceed at a faster rate in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister mentioned the Department of Education. Is that Department not fairly remote from the work base? Should not the group include representatives of the education boards? There have been hold-ups in the provision of access to ordinary schooling for children in need.

Mr. Moss: That is an interesting point. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in these matters, and that many of his amendments have already been accepted by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State. We shall begin consultation on the regulations fairly soon; if he wishes to make his point to us then, we shall consider it in more detail.
The hon. Members for Mid-Ulster and for Belfast, South mentioned the exclusion of abusers from the family home. We accept that there is widespread support for the principle of a court order that would exclude an abuser, or an alleged abuser, but we pointed out in the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs that it would be difficult to ensure not only that the rights of a person against whom such an order might be made are protected but that the order achieves the desired outcome. Reference was made to the Children (Scotland) Bill, which is currently being debated. The Scottish Office issued a White Paper suggesting that a provision for the exclusion of abusers be included in that Bill.
The Scottish Office experienced extreme difficulty in drafting an appropriate clause, and that is now the subject of considerable discussion in Committee. It is unlikely that it will survive in its original form. We sympathise with the points that hon. Members have made, but it is extremely difficult to draft an appropriate measure while retaining a vestige of human rights for the person who may be excluded from the family home.
The hon. Members for Belfast, South, for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) asked whether we would learn lessons from the Children Act of England and Wales. The Government consider that the legislative base provided by that Act is sound. A number of issues, of course, have to be addressed during the implementation of the order in Northern Ireland, but, as I have said, we are confident: that the primary legislation provides a sound basis and there are no plans to reform the fundamental principles of the Children Act. Work on the regulations and guidance which will flow from the order is proceeding in the Department. In carrying out that work, much regard will be taken of developments in England and Wales in the implementation of the Children Act.
The hon. Members for Mid-Ulster and for Belfast, South raised the definition of disability, which they felt was rather stigmatising. The definition provided in the order follows that used in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 and is repeated in the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. Changing the definition may give rise to anomalies

and it would be inappropriate to use a definition for disabled children that differs from that used in legislation affecting disabled people generally.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Moss: If I must.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister said in his opening speech that he would be brief to allow us to speak. He has plenty of time now to answer the points that have been raised. The Minister is, of course, acting on advice, but it is the same advice that the same Department tendered to his predecessor in 1989, when I was steering the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Bill through the House. If that Department has not learned anything from 1989, it is time that there was a shake-up.

Mr. Moss: My colleagues in the Department probably heard that as well as I did. [Interruption.] I am not blaming anybody.
The hon. Members for Belfast, South and for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked about guardians ad litem and what steps we were taking to ensure their independence. We recognise the key importance of those people and that there should be a representative of the child and his or her interests in certain proceedings under the order. The creation of an effective guardian ad litem service will be essential to the successful operation of the children order. Detailed arrangements have yet to finalised, but it is envisaged that the service will operate as an independent body, quite separate from the health and social services boards and trusts.
I shall also address one or two individual comments. The hon. Member for Torfaen asked how we will monitor the children order. I assure him that the management executive, assisted by the social services inspectorate, will monitor the implementation of the order. The hon. Gentleman also asked about trusts being less accountable for their actions than boards. The health and social services trusts are statutory bodies established by the Department of Health and Social Services and remain fully within the health and personal social services department. Trusts exercising delegated functions will be fully accountable for their actions to appropriate boards and, ultimately, to the Department and the Minister.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South raised two other issues—one about Kidscape. The regional strategy for 1992–97 contains a target that Kidscape, a self-protection programme for children, will be introduced in every primary school by 1997. The Department is confident that that target will be met. The hon. Gentleman also asked about waiting lists for the registration of child minders. It is true that in some places the processing of applications for registration is delayed, but, overall, that is not the case. Boards and trusts actively encourage people to apply for registration. In the past five years, for example, the number of registered child minders has risen by 57 per cent.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West asked about care units in training schools. The order makes provisions for the creation of separate care units in training schools. We emphasise that those care units will be quite separate from the parts of the complexes that accommodate children who have committed offences.
Last, but not least, the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) raised a specific point. It is true that a teenager was recently treated in Holywell hospital as the hon. Gentleman described, but that was a most unusual case. The circumstances will be reviewed to eliminate the likelihood of similar admissions in the future.
I commend the orders to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Children (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 12th January, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 12th January, be approved.—[Mr. Moss.]

NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &;c.),

That the draft Northern Ireland (Loans) (Increase of Limit) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.—[Mr. Willetts.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

ROAD VEHICLES

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8958/94, relating to recording equipment in road vehicles; and supports the Government's view that, while there is a need for alternative recording equipment, further development work is needed to prove the security of any new system before any change can be agreed.

EUROPEAN SOCIAL POLICY

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9069/94, relating to the future of European social policy; and shares the Government's view that future Community social policy must centre on the need to tackle unemployment and facilitate the creation of new jobs, taking account of the principle of subsidiarity, the need to respect the diversity of Member States' institutions and traditions, and the importance of enhancing the competitiveness of Community businesses; takes note of European Community Document No. 4075/94, relating to the application of the Agreement on Social Policy, of European Community Document No. 11115/94, relating to a Resolution on the future of social policy, and of European Community Document No. 6230/94, relating to European Works Councils; and welcomes the fact that that acts adopted under the Agreement on Social Policy are not applicable to the United Kingdom under the terms of the Maastricht Treaty.—[Mr. Willetts.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Doveridge Bypass

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I beg leave to present a petition given to me by Councillor Percy Brindley on Monday. It is about the Department of Transport's decision to postpone its plans to build the Doveridge bypass. The petition reads:
To the House of Commons
The Petition of residents of Doveridge and the surrounding area declares that the decision to delay the construction of the A564 Stoke-Derby link road means that the failure to build it puts them in continuing danger and the Petitioners urge the House to press the Secretary of State for Transport to reinstate this road, otherwise known as the Doveridge Bypass, into the roads programme immediately.
And the Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Horticultural Colleges

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Willetts.]

Mrs. Marion Roe: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise matters connected with a subject rarely debated in the House—horticulture. It is a topic close to my heart, first because it is a major industry in my constituency, but secondly because I am aware of the problems associated with the industry through my work as chairman of the Conservative parliamentary horticulture and market sub-committee, as vice-president of the Capel Manor horticulture trust, as a livery man of the Worshipful Company of Gardeners, as an honorary member of the Institute of Horticulture, and, finally, as parliamentary consultant to the Horticultural Trades Association, which has, of course, been properly registered in the Register of Members' Interests.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to a matter that should be of concern to hon. Members: further education students training for a career in horticulture are at an unfair disadvantage compared with most students training for work in other industries.
Commercial horticultural production is an industry of great importance to the United Kingdom, with a total value of about £1.8 billion per year. There is also considerable scope for import substitution, especially in the provision of ornamental trees and shrubs used in landscaping schemes and in private gardens.
The British garden, park and rural landscape are part of our heritage, and contribute enormously to our tourist industry and to our leisure industries. Not only do our urban landscape schemes enhance the visual appearance of our towns and cities, but the trees that they contain improve air quality, filtering out dust and traffic pollution and reducing noise. The horticulture industry therefore makes an incalculable contribution to the British way of life, beyond what can be measured in purely financial terms.
This important industry relies upon a relatively small number of further education graduates—about 1,500 a year. A relatively modest slice of the UK's further education budget—a mere 0.32 per cent.—would sustain the education needs of an industry which makes a major contribution to the UK economy and to the environment.
It has long been recognised that horticulture is best taught in colleges with appropriate facilities, and excellent colleges do exist. The nature of the industry demands that such colleges, with their workshops, glasshouses and outside growing areas, should be located in rural areas. A relatively high proportion of students will also be attracted from rural areas, which inevitably means that most students either travel long distances to attend courses or seek residential accommodation.
Each horticultural college draws its students from a wide area, frequently from throughout the United Kingdom, and is equipped with extensive residential accommodation. That distinguishes the colleges from a typical further education establishment, which is situated at the centre of a public transport network in the centre of an urban area and draws upon day students who travel from home.
If the centres provided by horticulture colleges—modern horticultural units with the latest technology in keeping with the highly specialised nature of the industry—are expensive to install and run, the teaching methods employed are also costly. Small teaching groups are required because of the safety demands of the training. That those additional costs are inevitable has been recognised by the Further Education Funding Council tariff advisory committee, which recommended a higher level of funding for courses.
Despite that recognition, the facilities and the centres of excellence which contain them are in danger of being lost because the courses are hardly viable. That is due to a combination of two factors. The first is the small number of horticulture students, when taken over the country as a whole. I stated earlier that there were about 1,500 horticulture further education graduates a year. Within that number is an enormous diversity, with graduates in landscape construction, landscape maintenance and green-keeping, and a substantial number of general horticulture graduates.
The commercial production industry—which has the greatest potential for import substitution and export development—relies on about 200 graduates per year being supplied by a handful of courses.
The second, and more significant, point is that there is an increasing incidence of potential students being denied the resources to attend courses. Student fees and maintenance grants are part of local authority expenditure, and students in further education rely on discretionary awards. Although local authorities have an obligation to provide such awards in practice, funds are often not available for all who demand them.
In each successive year, there is an increase in the number of eligible students who are unable to obtain adequate awards. Statistics from 1992 show that nearly 7 per cent. of students eligible for discretionary awards were unable to take up courses in land-based subjects because grants were not available. In addition, the level of some awards was insufficient to allow the student to commence his or her chosen course. I do not have more recent statistics to hand, but all the evidence points to a deterioration of the situation since then.
Courses which are otherwise viable are therefore put in jeopardy. Discretionary awards can be denied to students for a variety of reasons, none of which relates to the education needs of the student. I shall cite a number of examples. First, despite their obligation to do so, some authorities do not make discretionary awards. Their justification for that is that their expenditure is fully allocated elsewhere.
Secondly, other authorities do not provide out-county awards where they consider that relevant courses are available in-county. That action demonstrates the local authorities' lack of appreciation of the diversity within the industry. Such authorities fail to recognise the need for the very specialised training facilities required for the various sectors of the industry. At present, different colleges specialise in different sectors. One might have excellent facilities for landscape construction. Another might have facilities for hardy ornamental stock production or garden centre operations. To combine groups of students into one general course is to destroy the excellence that currently exists.
Thirdly, other authorities will not fund land-based courses. Therefore, effective use cannot be made of existing resources, not because further education funding is inadequate but because students are denied access. That results in the available courses being undersubscribed and threatens the continued viability of such centres and the specialised courses that they provide for the needs of horticulture. That will result in valuable national resources going to waste. Also, students entering further education are discriminated against vis-à-vis students entering higher education, who are entitled to receive mandatory awards. That is unjust discrimination.
Students who enter horticultural further education are more likely to require accommodation or incur extensive travelling costs than more typical further education students. Thus there is inequality of opportunity between rural students who wish to train for a horticultural career and urban students who have easy access to local further education colleges. The current system of discretionary awards is seen to be unsatisfactory because it discriminates against students in the horticulture industry who wish to take up further education. The withholding of discretionary awards threatens the future of the excellent courses that are now available and the centres that provide them. The horticulture industry cannot tackle the problem alone. While the industry might in various ways help to support a limited number of centres of excellence, its efforts will be to no avail if students cannot obtain the grants that they need to attend those centres.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the considerable benefits of an efficient, well-run horticulture industry which provides well-trained staff and can hold its own against competition from any part of the world. Against that, he should consider the relatively modest cost of introducing mandatory further education awards for horticulture students in place of the current discretionary awards. I ask my hon. Friend to agree that such a change in the funding of students' awards in further education should be enacted. I look forward to his response.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on her success in obtaining an Adjournment debate to raise this topic in the House. I thank her for her interesting, eloquent and informative speech. We would expect no less because we well understand her expertise in horticulture and we appreciate very much her work on behalf of the horticulture industry. In turn, she will know that my own family has been actively involved in horticulture for many years—indeed, for generations—and I can well appreciate personally the issues involved.
My hon. Friend's speech focused mainly on horticulture students in further education, but she also mentioned, to differentiate them, higher education students. Students on designated higher education courses, whatever the subject, will, of course, be eligible for mandatory awards and also for student loans. It is a matter of record that Britain's system of support for higher education students is one of the most generous in the world. For 1995–96, the total support available through grants and loans in this area will increase by 2.5 per cent., in line with forecast price increases.
With regard to further education, my hon. Friend is right to say that students depend to a large extent on discretionary awards from local education authorities. Although local education authorities are required to make grants to eligible students attending designated courses, they may make grants at their discretion to students who are not personally eligible to receive mandatory awards or who are attending non-designated courses. The decision whether to make such a grant lies entirely with the authority concerned, as does the rate of grant payable and the method of assessment.
Although authorities are entirely free to decide on the allocation of discretionary awards funding, they must make clear the basis on which their decisions are made. The public can, of course, try to influence the discretionary awards policies and budgets of individual authorities. The Audit Commission's arrangements for the publication of performance indicators for each authority's services, including discretionary awards, are promoting informed comparisons of local education authorities' effectiveness in responding to local needs.
There has been a good deal of concern recently about the supposed decline in the availability of discretionary awards. In fact, the evidence suggests that the system as a whole is holding up well. The Gulbenkian survey, published in April last year, found that the number of discretionary awards to further education students was forecast to rise by 32 per cent. between 1990–91 and 1993–94. Expenditure on those awards was also expected to rise by 14 per cent. in real terms over the same period. My Department's own statistics show that in 1992–93, local authorities in England and Wales spent almost £170 million on further education discretionary awards.
Within that overall picture, I accept that there are wide variations in local authorities' practices. To some extent, that is a response to local needs and priorities; that is inevitable and should, indeed, be welcomed. But there is evidence that potential students' chances of obtaining an award are increasingly dependent on where they happen to live and that some authorities are effectively throwing in the towel on discretionary awards, as my hon. Friend has mentioned.
The Government are concerned by this evidence and are keeping the situation under review. However, unless there is evidence that a local education authority is in breach of its statutory duty—for example, by operating a policy of saying, "No awards, come what may"—it is not open to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to intervene in an individual authority's policies. It must be for the local authorities themselves in the first instance to respond as necessary to concerns about the availability of awards. I understand that the local authority associations are currently working on a voluntary code of practice, and I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming that development.
My hon. Friend's particular concern is with the position of residential horticultural colleges. I am certainly aware of the particular difficulties faced by students wishing to attend residential colleges because of the relatively high cost to local authorities of supporting them. She will appreciate that a similar problem arises in relation to the agricultural colleges. She may like to know that I am to meet two delegations soon to hear their views on the issue.
My hon. Friend's proposed solution is simply to make mandatory awards available for students at those colleges. There are two difficulties with her proposal. First, it would require primary legislation, because the 1962 Act provides for mandatory awards to be made only to students on higher education courses. Secondly, it would be expensive. Even to extend mandatory awards only to full-time students at residential horticultural and agricultural colleges—1 doubt whether my hon. Friend would argue that the two should be treated differently—would cost an estimated £30 million a year. To extend the student loans scheme, which would be the natural corollary, would cost another £8 million a year initially. More importantly, any such move would open the floodgates to other further education students who felt that they had an equally strong claim to mandatory funding. That could be enormously expensive and in the current public expenditure climate it is simply not a realistic option.
Of course, colleges need to ensure that students are aware of other sources of finance—notably access funds and career development loans. In 1994–95, the further education access fund will give more than £5.7 million to students in financial difficulties, which is a rise of almost 20 per cent. on the previous year. In 1993–94, 118 agricultural or horticultural trainees paid for their courses themselves using a career development loan. I also welcome the support for students provided by the industry.
In the main, the horticultural sector is holding up well. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also be pleased to know the promising trend in enrolments. Between 1992–93 and 1993–94-it is always difficult to get bang up-to-date statistics, especially at this time of year before the returns come in—full-time equivalent enrolments in agriculture and horticulture colleges rose by 6 per cent., which is slightly higher than those for the further education sector as a whole, which were 5 per cent. College strategic plans show that enrolments in these colleges are expected to rise over the period to 1996–97 by slightly more than FE colleges as a whole. For full-time students, 39 per cent. in agriculture and horticulture compared with 23 per cent. in other further education.
Thirty-four colleges in England offer horticulture and there is evidence of a growth in demand for the newer courses. Pershore college of horticulture in Worcestershire reports that it now fully expects to meet its present target numbers. Moulton college in my home county of Northamptonshire is an example of effective linkage between horticultural provision and industry. Many other land-based colleges have diversified their horticultural provision to reflect new market demands. They have successfully developed flexible provision related to garden centre management and management of the countryside.
The Further Education Funding Council is sensitive to the costs of such courses and gives a higher weighting to them in its funding mechanism. In 1995–96, the council will increase the relative cost weighting factor accorded to such courses by 25 per cent.
Furthermore, in its work to develop the new funding methodology, on which it has consulted widely, the funding council found that considerable variations had existed between LEAs in the level of funding for FE colleges. The FEFC is addressing that by gradually converging its average funding per unit of activity. That means that institutions with historically low funding for their type of provision can expect to get more in future, and to flourish from it.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those topics, which are of great importance to the industry. I hope that she appreciates that, in turn, we continue to review the position. We are grateful for the evidence that she has given today. I hope that she will report back to those in the industry that we are aware of the importance of their work and are doing what we can to help. In the meantime, by way of exhortation, I encourage colleges to build on their effective liaison with the industry, and to continue to develop training to meet its needs. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the House will join me in stressing the importance of a well-trained work force, both for the individual and the industry that it serves.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Ten o'clock.